Loading...
Historian: In the collection of the Science Museum, London, there is a small bottle that is purported to contain the entire original batch of artificial mauve dye created by Sir William Perkin in his laboratory in 1856. Indeed, in his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance, but this batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye. Also, the early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle.
Statement: The historian's statements imply that the bottle does not contain 1 at least in part because the substance in the bottle is 2. Select for 1 and for 2 the options that create the statement that is most strongly supported by the information above.
Any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye
A dye produced in Perkins' laboratory
A dye created in 1856
A commercially produced dye
A crystalline form of the dye
| Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
| "There is a small bottle that is purported to contain the entire original batch of artificial mauve dye created by Sir William Perkin in his laboratory in 1856" |
|
| "In his experiments that preceded his commercial production of mauve dyes, he made only a few grams of the substance" |
|
| "This batch would likely have been completely used up when he tested it as a dye" |
|
| "The early version of mauve dye that Perkin produced commercially consisted of an impure paste rather than the pure crystalline form of the substance contained in the bottle" |
|
"Any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye"
"A dye produced in Perkins' laboratory"
"A dye created in 1856"
"A commercially produced dye"
"A crystalline form of the dye"
Part 1: "Any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye" - This is what the bottle does NOT contain
Part 2: "A crystalline form of the dye" - This characteristic proves it can't be the original
Verification: The statement reads: "The bottle does not contain any of Perkins' original batch of mauve dye at least in part because the substance in the bottle is a crystalline form of the dye." This perfectly captures the historian's reasoning - the crystalline nature (among other factors) proves it's not the original batch.