Question

1. suppose the writer’s primary purpose had been to offer an example of a discovery that changed the way scientists viewed the basic laws of chemistry. would this essay accomplish that purpose?

a. yes, because it describes how the observation of triangular snowflakes has led scientists to discover that their understanding of the basic laws of chemistry is flawed.
b. yes, because it describes how scientists have applied the knowledge they’ve gained through studying snowflakes to other areas of chemistry.
c. no, because it focuses on how scientists are struggling to determine how triangular snowflakes are formed.
d. no, because it explains that triangular snowflakes appeared to, but don’t actually, violate the basic laws of chemistry.

Explanation:

To determine the answer, analyze each option:

• A: The essay doesn’t say chemistry laws are flawed. Eliminate.
• B: The essay focuses on snowflake formation, not applying knowledge to other chemistry areas. Eliminate.
• C: The essay explains triangular snowflakes’ formation (they don’t violate laws), not scientists “struggling.” Eliminate.
• D: The essay shows triangular snowflakes seemed to violate laws but didn’t, so it doesn’t offer a discovery that changed chemistry laws’ view. Correct.

Answer:

D. No, because it explains that triangular snowflakes appeared to, but don’t actually, violate the basic laws of chemistry.