Question

read the passage. there are some questions about this passage. linus pauling (1901 - 1994) was an american scientist. he studied dna, the material that carries a living organism’s genetic information. from the shape of dna 1 like most other scientists, pauling was not interested in dna until 1952, even though swiss biologist friedrich miescher had discovered dna in 1869. but what was dna? scientists knew only a little. it came in long strands, and each strand had a phosphorus - sugar backbone. there were also nucleic bases, which stuck out from the backbone like knots on a spine. but the shape of the strands and how they linked up were mysteries—important mysteries. as pauling showed with hemoglobin, shape can affect how molecules work. soon the shape of dna became the most important question in biology. 2 and pauling, like many others, assumed he was the only one smart enough to answer this question. this wasn’t, or at least wasn’t only, arrogance: pauling had simply never been beaten before. so in 1952, pauling sat down at his desk in california to crack dna. he decided, incorrectly, that the bulky nucleic bases sat on the outside of each strand with the phosphorus - sugar backbone toward the molecule’s core. pauling also reasoned that dna was a triple helix, with three ribbons of the phosphorus - sugar backbones forming a spiral. unfortunately for pauling, his data came from a dried - out dna sample, which made the molecule seem more complicated. but on paper, all this seemed possible. 3 everything was humming along nicely until pauling asked a graduate student to check his calculations. the student did and was soon tying himself in knots trying to see where he was wrong and where pauling was right. eventually, the student pointed out to pauling that something about his theory didn’t seem quite right. 3 ○ pauling sometimes cheated in order to prevent other scientists from solving dna before he did. 4 ○ pauling should have gotten credit for determining that dna strands were in the shape of a helix. part b which sentence from the passage best helps develop the claim that is the correct answer from part a? ○ 1. “this wasn’t, or at least wasn’t only, arrogance: pauling had simply never been beaten before.” (paragraph 2) ○ 2. “everything was humming along nicely until pauling asked a graduate student to check his calculations.” (paragraph 3) ○ 3. “the graduate student explained his thinking, and pauling, being pauling, politely ignored him.” (paragraph 4) ○ 4. “ironically, that scientist had told pauling the same thing years before on a sea cruise.” (paragraph 9)

Explanation:

Since the problem is about analyzing a passage and answering related questions (which falls under the subfield of Literature in the Arts discipline, as it involves textual analysis), we'll use the Answer-Explanation Format. However, the original question seems to be a multiple - choice question with two parts (Part A and Part B), but the specific question for Part A is not fully clear from the provided text. Assuming that Part A is about a claim related to Linus Pauling and DNA, and Part B is about finding the sentence that supports the claim in Part A.

Part A (assuming a common question about Pauling's work on DNA)

Let's assume the correct option for Part A is related to Pauling's incorrect or correct approach. For example, if the claim is about Pauling making a mistake in his DNA structure model, then an option like "Pauling's model of DNA was incorrect as his data came from a dried - out sample and his structural assumptions were wrong" (but since we have options like 3 and 4 in the original, let's assume the correct Part A option is related to his incorrect model or his behavior). But due to the unclear Part A question, we'll focus on Part B.

Part B

If the claim in Part A is about Pauling's overconfidence in his ability to solve the DNA structure (leading to his incorrect model), this sentence explains that his assumption he was the only one smart enough to solve the DNA question wasn't just arrogance but also due to his past success (never been beaten before). This helps develop the claim by providing a reason for his overconfidence which led to his incorrect approach to the DNA structure.

(Note: The exact answer depends on the specific claim in Part A. If more details about Part A's question are provided, a more accurate answer can be given.)

Answer:

1. "This wasn't, or at least wasn't only, arrogance: Pauling had simply never been beaten before." (Paragraph 2) (assuming this supports a claim about Pauling's overconfidence leading to his incorrect DNA model)