Question

harus sugar backbone. there were also nucleic om the backbone like knobs on a spine. but the how they linked up were mysteries—important wed with hemoglobin, shape can affect how shape of dna became the most important y others, assumed he was the only one smart estion. this wasn’t, or at least wasn’t only, mply never been beaten before. so in 1952, sk in california to crack dna. he decided, nucleic bases sat on the outside of each strand r backbone toward the molecule’s core. pauling as a triple helix, with three ribbons of the nes forming a spiral. unfortunately for pauling, -d-out dna sample, which made the molecule ut on paper, all this seemed possible. ng along nicely until pauling asked a graduate ations. the student did and was soon tying ee where he was wrong and where pauling was nt pointed out to pauling that something about e right.
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)

1. “everything was humming along nicely until

pauling asked a graduate student to check
his calculations.” (paragraph 3)

1. “the graduate student explained his

thinking, and pauling, being pauling, politely
ignored him.” (paragraph 4)

1. “ironically, that scientist had told pauling the

same thing years before on a sea cruise.”
(paragraph 9)

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option to see which supports the claim from Part A (likely about Pauling's oversight or error in DNA structure work):

Analyzing each option:

1. Option 1 talks about Pauling’s lack of being beaten before (arrogance/confidence), not directly about his DNA mistake or oversight. Eliminate.
2. Option 2 only states Pauling asked a student to check calculations—no info on the outcome or how it relates to the claim. Eliminate.
3. Option 3 shows Pauling ignored the student’s thinking. If Part A’s claim is about Pauling’s refusal to listen to criticism/correction, this directly shows he ignored the student’s input (which likely pointed out his error). This supports a claim about his oversight.
4. Option 4 mentions a scientist told Pauling the same thing years before, but it’s ironic and less direct about the immediate error/correction process compared to Option 3.

To determine the best sentence, we analyze each option:

• Option 1 focuses on Pauling’s confidence, not his error.
• Option 2 only describes Pauling asking for a check, not the result.
• Option 3 shows Pauling ignored the student’s input (likely about his DNA model error), directly supporting a claim about his oversight.
• Option 4 is ironic but less direct about the immediate error context.

Answer:

1. "The graduate student explained his thinking, and Pauling, being Pauling, politely ignored him." (Paragraph 4)