Reading comp PrepTest 130 · Section 2 · Question 8

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author on Emeagwali (looked to nature for a breakthrough in parallel computers) and problem Emeagwali solved (predicted oil flow, a difficult computation problem)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Emeagwali drew inspiration from nature for designs, which helped him make a breakthrough with parallel computer systems (first and second sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Single computers make one calculation at a time (sequential), while parallel computers can process calculations simultaneously (third sentence)
    • Before Emeagwali, supercomputers working sequentially were used for oil field calculations, so they were too slow and inefficient (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "success" (first sentence); "fueled by his willingness to reach beyond established paradigms and draw inspiration for his designs from nature" (first sentence); "achieved breakthroughs" (second sentence); "pioneered" (fourth sentence); "solve what is considered one of the most computationally difficult problems" (fourth sentence); "too slow and inefficient to accurately predict such extremely complex movements" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • In-depth description of Emeagwali’s solution (modeled network after tree branches to maximize messages sent)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Examples of variables that must be calculated when simulating oil flow:
    • Temperature, direction, viscosity, pressure, geological properties (second sentence)
  • Comparison, according to Emeagwali/the author:
    • The mathematical model that underlies tree branches can be used to set up a massively parallel computer network, allowing the computers to maximize the number of messages sent and preventing the computers from interfering with each other (fourth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "massively" (third sentence); "great difficulties" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Another Emeagwali breakthrough (parallel computers, based on honeycombs' geometery, that can predict weather) and prediction (more use of nature)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to Emeagwali/the author:
    • Emeagwali's parallel computer network is similar to the geometry of bees' honeycombs, which use efficient 3D spacing (second sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to Emeagwali:
    • Computer scientists will increasingly turn to nature, which will cause us to better understand natural systems and improve human technology (third and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "another breakthrough" (first sentence); "extremely efficient" (second sentence)

Main Point: By designing parallel computer systems modeled after elements of nature, Emeagwali has been able to solve computational problems that couldn’t be addressed by traditional supercomputers running sequentially.

Innovative [Subject]: This passage best fits the "Innovative [Subject]" Meta-Structure.* In these passages, the author describes why the subject was unique, pioneering, or disruptive. So, "[Subject]" is a placeholder for whatever the subject of the passage happens to be. The subject of this passage is the computer scientist Philip Emeagwali, so we can think of this as an Innovative Computer Scientist passage.

In an Innovative [Subject] passage, the main point is generally the author's opinion on the innovative subject. To identify this main point, we look for the sentence or two in which the author summarizes their position on the subject. The author provides their summary in the first sentence of the passage. We used this sentence as the basis of our anticipated main point. But to make sure we had all our bases covered, we added some details from the passage.

*You could also think of this as a Problem/Solution passage since Emeagwali's innovative designs solved problems that couldn't be solved with sequential computer networks. Likewise, we could think of this as an Old Approach/New Approach passage, with those sequential computers representing the old way of doing things and Emeagwali's innovative parallel networks representing the new way. We could even call this a Generalization/Example passage, as the passage gives us two examples of breakthroughs that illustrate Emeagwali's innovative mind and willingness to turn to nature for solutions.

Comparison: Given the passage's main point, it's unsurprising that the author compares Emeagwali's parallel computer networks to nature several times. This makes the comparison the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. To save us some time on the inevitable questions about these comparisons, we can try to commit these two comparisons to memory:

• Network that predicted underground oil flow was based on tree branch formations
• Network that can predict weather patterns was based on the geometry of bees' honeycomb geometry

We can classify this passage's Meta-Structure in several ways, but they all largely align and overlap. In viewing the passage through these lenses, though, we are better able to anticipate answers. For example, we know from them that answers about innovation, new ideas, improving approaches, and solving problems are more likely to be correct than answers that don’t use that language. That’s a pretty good general idea to have going into any set of answer choices!