PrepTest 149

[lcid:3693] Prep Test 149 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 6-12  .       In a typical Hollywood action movie, the hero  . skirts death to complete a mission. Bad guys Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Science

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • What must be an analogy is introduced
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • While not 100% apparent before reading the start of paragraph 2, this is an analogy, comparing the heroes of action movies to universes that can sustain life
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • The analogy is brought around to the universe
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Any small change to the laws of physics would have made life impossible
    • Example - Strong nuclear force
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • Some cosmologists make an argument
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - If this universe is so improbable, how can it exist?
    • Cosmologist Solution - It's just one of many multiverses, so it's likely one would have life
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • The Author poses a question about that view and brings up what it's based on
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - How unique are the laws allowing life in our universe?
    • Cosmologists - We can't find another set of laws that lead to life
Paragraph 5
  • Paragraph note
    • The Author points out a flaw in the opposing point and research that calls it into question
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Flaw - The Cosmologists tweak one variable at a time
    • New research by Author - Changing several variables at a time lets you find sets that allow for life
Paragraph 6
  • Paragraph note
    • The Author brings her view back to the question of the multiverse
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • The Author's view doesn't call into question the multiverse because:
      • Models of the universe's creation support a multiverse
      • Other cosmological puzzles are potentially solved by a multiverse
    • This seems more like an add-on since the Author and Cosmologists are on the same side - the main debate is between the Cosmologists and Author over the uniqueness of the physical laws allowing for life
Main Point:
Some cosmologists argue that the laws of physics allowing for life are relatively rare, but recent research shows that there are numerous potential universes with significantly different laws that would allow for life.

Key Lines:
Lines 7-10 - A general view of the universe is established to set up background for the debate
Lines 18-22 - The view of the Cosmologists is introduced
Lines 28-29 - The Author introduces a new question to be answered
Lines 33-35 - The process of the Cosmologists is discussed
Lines 38-39 - A problem with that process is introduced
Lines 40-45 - The Author's research rebutting their view/process is established
Lines 49-50 - A point of agreement between the Author and Cosmologists is noted

Meta-Structure:
There are several Question/Answer substructures here, but the overall passage falls into the Old Belief (Cosmologists)/New Belief (Author) structure. There's a point of agreement noted at the end, however!

Last Thoughts:
There's a lot of information here, and a lot of back and forth. Usually when dealing with Science passages, we're concerned with Causality. Here, there's not a lot of that. Instead, the passage focuses on comparing and contrasting the methods and conclusions drawn by two sides of a debate about laws of physics, life, and the universe/multiverse. We should keep those differences in mind, and also be sure to note the similarity explored at the end.

Also, this passage has a rare feature—the Author speaking in the first person. That allows for stronger answers than we might otherwise expect, as the Author is presenting directly from her experience.

Question prompt

The author would be Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Answer choices

  1. A
    It focuses on looking Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 39-40) The Author says that she tweaks multiple constants at a time to get to her results, so tweaking one constant at a time wouldn't be irrelevant to the matter at hand—it would just be limited compared to what experiments could do.
  2. B
    It is too unfocused Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 33-35) If anything, the Author believes it's too focused by focusing on just a single constant instead of multiple ones.
  3. C
    It has been conducted Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Paragraph 5) There's no accusations that the opposing viewpoint is messing up or being sloppy with their math.
  4. D
    Its methodology results in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True

    Strategy Overview:
    Find the section of the passage discussing this using our notations and then find the Author's opinion of it in the text, if we didn't note it

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    This question asks about the conventional way in which scientists investigate the laws of physics, and so we should head back to our notations to find where that's discussed. We can see that Paragraph 5 sees the Author pointing out a flaw in the opposing research, which was the traditional method.

    Heading back to that paragraph, we can see that she says they investigate the laws of physics by tweaking a single constant while leaving the rest the same. How does she feel about that? She's not a fan—she says there's ""no reason to tweak just one parameter,"" and that her research based on tweaking many or all of them has yielded better results than the other experiments.

    Let's find an answer reflecting this criticism.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 38-45) The Author says that there's no reason to tweak just one constant at a time, as the traditional approach does, and that her approach of changing multiple things has yielded ""numerous scenarios"" that fit the search for possible universes that could host intelligent life. As such, she believes that their approach results in an overly restricted set of outcomes, and that changing up multiple variables at a time leads to a wider set of outcomes.

    Key Takeaway:
    When the Author critiques an opposing view or process, you should be sure to note it and characterize it quickly. It will almost certainly show up in a question!
  5. E
    It will eventually produce Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 39-45) At no point does the Author predict that their method will result in a workable outcome.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion