Reading comp PrepTest 149 · Section 2 · Question 6

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point as we outlined after reading the passage

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The Author here, after going into some background about theories of life and the universe, brings up a viewpoint (Paragraph 3)—that of the Cosmologists who try to reconcile the unlikelihood of a life-sustaining universe with its existence. They feel that there is a multiverse, and so with many, many universes, it's likely that one would have the laws of physics that support life.

When such a viewpoint is introduced, it's common for the Author to take a stance in favor or against it (the same as in LR). Here, the Author ends up pointing out a flaw with the experiments that led the Cosmologists to that opinion (Lines 38-39) before stating that her research shows that there are potential universes with laws ""very different from our own"" that could support life. So she disagrees with their research.

She ends by stating a point of agreement—that her research doesn't undermine the argument for the multiverse—but as that's a point of agreement, it's less of a main point of the argument.

Let's find an answer reflecting her opinion in the debate—that while some cosmologists believe the laws of physics allowing for life are rare, there are actually a lot more potential life-sustaining universes than they believe.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 39-45) The Author finally hops in at the end of the fifth paragraph to note that her research shows that what the Cosmologists believe—that our universe is relatively unique in its ability to sustain life—might actually be incorrect, and that there are ""numerous scenarios"" with ""very different"" laws of physics that would ""perhaps even"" allow ""some"" forms of intelligent life. This answer reflects the Author's view of the central debate in the passage and matches her certainty, which is relatively speculative since she hasn't actually witnessed any of these universes, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Be sure to focus on the viewpoints, and how the Author feels about them, in RC passages. And when the Author speaks in the first-person, you better believe that that section is likely to reflect at least a portion of the main point!

Incorrect. (Lines 39-45; Lines 52-54) The Author hops in to speak about the results of her calculations in Lines 39-45—that there are numerous potential universes that would allow for intelligent life. This answer doesn't address that conclusion at all, so it can't reflect the main point of the passage. While this idea does show up in the passage, you should have noted that the second half of the answer reflects only one of two reasons the Author lists in the last paragraph, so this answer doesn't even fully encapsulate that one paragraph!

Incorrect. (Paragraph 5) The Author does say that Cosmologists have reached this conclusion, but she notes that it's based on a flawed methodology that changes only one parameter at a time. When the Author tweaked multiple at a time, she was able to come up with numerous universes that could sustain life.

Incorrect. (Paragraphs 3-4) This is the argument/answer that Cosmologists came up with to the question of how such a rare thing happened, but the Author shows that this is based on flawed experimentation in Paragraph 4.

Incorrect. (Lines 7-10) The analogy was meant to introduce the background of this passage—it doesn't address the central question of how unique our physical laws are in allowing for life.