Q16

[rishisb]

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone could explain -- carefully -- why the answer to Q 16 is A, not C? I would like to understand the reasoning.

I was tempted with answer C because the end of paragraph three *finally* tells us something that explains why some nerve cells die.

N.B.: When I read the start of paragraph two, I initially thought that the second paragraph would be an explanation of why certain nerve cells die. Nope; instead, the author goes on a long talk about experiments that did not obviously explain why the cells die. Stupidly, we were put on hold until the end of paragraph three.

[aileenann]

Thanks for your question!

I agree with you that sometimes LSAT passages are not super well structured. However, that is not an accident by any means. That makes it harder to understand and figure out what the scale is, what we really know, and what the author really thinks. This is part of the reason you want to always read the *entire* passage with an open mind - things may not be as they first appeared. It is a good sign that you noticed that here.

Now let us look at the question. From the text itself it is not clear what we need to do - we may just need to identify a portion of the text, but we may also need to make inerences or synthesize several parts of the text.

The question asks us to figure out why the discovery of NGF is noteworthy. (C) suggests that the discovery of NGF confirmed that cells are programmed to die. However, I do not think this is precisely what it confirmed - NGF itself programs nerve cells to live rather than to die. So this is somewhat skewed compared to what I would want to see.

Let us now take a look at the correct answer, (A). I like this for a few reasons. One, is that it describes not only what the discovery of NGF did but also how its importance related to other advances - in this case paving the way to further discoveries. This is a more satisfying answer because it relates NGF to other things, giving more context for why it is important.

I also like (A) because the language is nice and bland. It matches up with the whole passage and does not have a single word I cannot prove.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have more questions or thoughts on this!

[unmrkny]

Can you explain why E is wrong?

I see why A is better than E but can't specifically point out why E is incorrect.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'll tell you how I would decide between answer choices (A) and (E) on the day of the test. We're looking to identify something the author believes is the primary reason why Levi-Montalcini's discovery is noteworthy. The place in the passage where I hear the most 'voice' from the author is paragraph one. I'd look to contain my answer to the information in the first paragraph.

So answer choice (A) is about "paving the way" which corresponds with "crucial development in the history of biochemistry." Answer choice (A) seems to be supported by the first paragraph. I like it, but let's make sure answer choice (E) is wrong.

Answer choice (E) sounds very much like the information presented at the transition between the second and third paragraphs. This is simply too far away from the author's voice back in paragraph one, so eliminate it.

In a nutshell, answer choice (E) might be true, but we don't have support that the author thinks that this is the primary reason why Levi-Montalcini's discovery was noteworthy

If you see it differently, let me know!

[Elizabeth.Naff]

Answer choice (D) is also supported by the passage. Levi's experiments DID show observable reactions in the tissues of different species.

Officially hate this passage.

[sherminfaith]

"A" threw me because precisely I thought that "development of the nervous system" might be outside the scope of an article talking only about the development of "nerve cells." This, coupled with how perfectly the language and tone fell in with the passage (i.e. "paved the way" etc) made me sure that this was a trick answer.

Thus, I chose E because it seemed to most succinctly summurize the final outcome of the experiment (mouse tumor produces a substance that stimulates nerve cell growth) over B (just wrong), C (this hypothesis was proven early on and NGF causes cell growth, not death), and D ("observable biochemical reactions in the tissues" seemed far too vauge).

Can somebody explain how my reasoning with wording in regards to A was wrong, and how I can more confidently know how to equate certain words and phrases?

[nflamel69]

I was also between A and E. but as mattsherman said in this post, I did the EXACTLY same thought process as he did, and arrived at A. the thing is both D and E says that did the experiment prove, but did it say why is the proof important? Only A said so

[daniel]

Here's how I approached the answer choices in this question; would appreciate any feedback if I'm wrong about any of it.

(B) this answer is too narrowly focused on the new laboratory technique (tissue cultures, I assume). Furthermore, the experiment confirmed Levi-Montalcini's hypothesis, so it's probably not correct to say that the results were unanticipated. Since the focus is too narrow, this answer choice doesn't describe something that is "primarily" noteworthy.

(C) "normally programmed to die" appears in the passage on line 14, in the discussion of Levi-Montalcini's initial hypothesis. This answer choice is too narrowly focused on this initial hypothesis, and it ignores all of the (more significant) discoveries that follow in the discussion in the second and third paragraphs. Since the focus is too narrow, this answer choice doesn't describe something that is "primarily" noteworthy.

(D) "observable biochemical reactions" is very general and does not describe a reason for noteworthiness.

(E) While it is true that NGF is produced by mouse tumors, it is also produced and occurs naturally in organs of other animals, including humans. This answer choice really doesn't give us a reason to believe Levi-Montalcini's discovery of NGF is noteworthy.

(A) is the only answer choice that puts Levi-Montalcini's discovery in the context of scientific knowledge as a whole by correctly summarizing the overall impact of her research on that knowledge. For this reason, her research is considered to be noteworthy.

[ohthatpatrick]

Looks good to me.

When passages seem very linear, historical, factual, etc., you often only find the author's voice is some overarching statement about why this informative discussion is noteworthy or important. The closest things we get to that here are the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first couple sentences of the last paragraph.

As you summarized, the other answers are more narrowly focused on what she did in the course of discovering NGF, while (A) is focused on the impact of her discovery.

Nice work.

[phoebster21]

I really hate question types like these. They remind me of the "purpose" or "role" questions where the wrong answer choices may be technically or factually correct, but it's not actually describing WHY the author felt the need to say/cite/show that study/quote/etc. How should I know?? LOL

I'm trying to always think of parallel examples. Can someone confirm if my brief example would be similar?

Perhaps something like, "Buying milk from the store turned out to be really crazy ordeal. First, the lady at the store told me they were out of 2%, so I decided to just get whole milk, which I never do. When I got home, I realized the whole milk was spoiled and had curdled. I was really frustrated but decided to return the milk to the store. When I got there, I also bought some bread (as I had forgotten it the first time around). Upon check out, I let a few people go in front of me so I could catch up on the Entertainment weekly magazine in the check out line. As a result of letting 2 customers checkout ahead of me, I was the 100th customer and received a $300 prize."

A parallel question of something like "why was my milk purchase noteworthy" would have answers that are _factually_ correct, like, "without the original attempt to purchase milk, she wouldn't have gone back to purchase the bread she forgot." (technically, that's correct), or "the original attempt to buy milk allowed her to catch up on all the latest celebrity gossip in the Entertainment Weekly magazine" (also technically correct) but the purchase of the milk was noteworthy _because_ it led to being the 100th customer of the day!

Thoughts?

[kesikora]

The one thing I'm confused with on answer choice (a) is that the author is writing about the development of specific nerve cells, not the ENTIRE nervous system. Our nervous system is a huge, complex patchwork of nerves and cells. How can we say that the survival of performance of specific nerve cells is analogous to the development of the nervous system as a whole?

[ohthatpatrick]

(For the sake of others reading this: we're talking about line 45, which is where the support for (A) begins)

I don't think we need to say that nerve cells are analogous to the nervous system to like (A). The nerve cells are part of the nervous system. So the development of the nerve cells is part of the development of the nervous system.

This answer choice even clarifies that we learned about "more specific knowledge". So even if we're only talking about part of the nervous system, we're still gaining more specific knowledge about the processes.

Also, the patchwork you're talking about, of our completed nervous system is developed via the nerve cells. We're learning in this paragraph about how NGF + nerve cells help to set up this patchwork.

Line 52, "NGF seems to play two roles, initially directing the developing nerve processes toward the correct target cells with which they must connect".

Does that make sense?