PrepTest 130
Passage
Passage walkthrough
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)
- Author's view:
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)
- Examples of variables that must be calculated when simulating oil flow:
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)
- Comparison, according to Emeagwali/the author:
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.
Meta-Structure?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
Last Thoughts?
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!
Question prompt
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Strategy Overview
Answer Anticipation
Answer choices
-
AUntil recently, computer scientists Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
(A) Does this strengthen Emeagwali's prediction that more computer scientists will turn to nature to solve complex problems?
Yes! As we predicted, this answer highlights a change that could lead computer scientists to turn to nature to solve problems. According to (A), they didn't used to be aware of the mathematical principles underlying nature, but now they are. Becoming aware of something would certainly make you more likely to look to it in the future, so this answer strengthens the prediction made by Emeagwali.
Although it's a little scary to select the first answer that appears to strengthen an argument, this matches our anticipation, so we'd be justified in selecting it and advancing straight to the next question.
-
BSome of the variables Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
(B) Does this strengthen Emeagwali's prediction that more computer scientists will turn to nature to solve complex problems?
No. The global weather patterns weren't a natural process that Emeagwali turned to in order to create his system — he turned to honeycombs to predict weather patterns (P3, S2). Also, this answer doesn't establish a change in computer scientists that would lead to a future change — there's no guarantee that they'll discover these variables!
-
CComputer designs for the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
(C) Does this strengthen Emeagwali's prediction that more computer scientists will turn to nature to solve complex problems?
Nope. This doesn't highlight something that has changed, so it doesn't strengthen an argument for a particular change. It also deals with computers designed to predict natural phenomena, not computers with designs based on natural systems. And it also limits the effectiveness of these systems, which, if anything, suggests that they wouldn't be increasingly used.
-
DSome of the mathematical Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
(D) Does this strengthen Emeagwali's prediction that more computer scientists will turn to nature to solve complex problems?
Negative. This answer is a little weak for a correct Strengthen answer ("Some"). Also, if anything, suggesting that the mathematical principles overlap between solutions means that computer scientists might be able to use Emeagwali's parallel systems to solve other problems. In that case, they wouldn't need to look to nature — Emeagwali already did that hard work for them! So, this answer choice may undermine Emeagwali's prediction.
-
EUnderlying the designs for Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
(E) Does this strengthen Emeagwali's prediction that more computer scientists will turn to nature to solve complex problems?
Again, no. If designers of systems aren't explicitly aware of the mathematical principles that underlie their systems, then they wouldn't go out hunting for those mathematical principles, cutting against Emeagwali's prediction.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Why is B correct? 1 reply
Started by SuzieNewcome
-
Answer Choice A 0 replies
Started by bihaoqing@gmail.com
-
Question 5 4 replies
Started by Samir-Ghani