#20 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[cathyli1996]

Dear Powerscore instructor,

I am really confused by this MainPoint Question, because I don't really understand the content of the passage ...

I summarise the passage as:
P1 - present a view on the formation of our universe through the Big Bang
P2 - More context - Carroll &Chen says the Big Bang is not unique
p3- Carroll&Chen then talks about entropy and time, and how change always lead to disorder
(Till now... I really have no idea what's going on... )
p4 - the entropy actually implies the view on p1 is wrong; Carroll& Chen proposes an alternative explanation, and the author is not really a fan for it.
p5-6 - two new scientists propose a view in response to p4, which I don't understand the detail, but I know they provides an alternative explanation that helps to solve the "mystery" in p4

So after writing all it down, I still not sure what the main point is, I think entropy is something important and the two scientists mention in the last two paragraph also seems important. I am quite upset that none of the answer choices mention the two scientists, so I just chose (A) because it mentions entropy, the focus of p3-p6.

But can you please go through this question?

P.S. it is a mercy of LSAT that the questions for this passage do not focus on detail...

[Adam Tyson]

I think your analysis is actually pretty good, for the most part, cathyli1996! The only thing I think you may have missed is in the second paragraph, where Carroll and Chen based their idea on the theory that the Big Bang was not the beginning of everything, but just the beginning of our universe within a larger multiverse. That means that the hot, dense beginning of our universe makes sense even though a cold, empty space would have been the initial condition. It's because the Big Bang came along later, not at the beginning of it all!

That said, this is a tough passage, and yes indeed, we are lucky that they didn't proceed to question us too much about the science. They rarely do! It's always about the structure and the viewpoints, and those are what we should focus on. So, structurally, you're pretty much there, and adding in the viewpoints we might get something like "some scientists think the Big Bang wasn't the start of everything, just the start of our part of something bigger." Here's my paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown - see if this helps:

1. Basic theory
2. Some scientists modified the theory
3. What they were thinking about/background
4. Something didn't add up, so they modified the theory
5. Research backs them up
6. Conclusion - author thinks it makes sense

With all that, my prephrase for Main Point is "Those scientists modified the theory and it makes some sense."

Answer A looks like the best match.

I think you're mistaken about the author not liking Carroll and Chen's theory. I don't really see strong author viewpoint until the final paragraph, when he appears to endorse their hypothesis. Other than that, good work! Give it another read and see if it makes more sense.

[cathyli1996]

That makes a lot more sense! Thank you Adam!!!

[glasann]

Can you please shed some light on why E is wrong? I was torn between A and E but ultimately went with E since it seems a little more broad.

Thanks!

[MillsV]

Doesn't answer C also encompass answer A? I chose C because it seemed more general, and A seemed too specific.

[Ari]

Can you please shed some light on why E is wrong? I was torn between A and E but ultimately went with E since it seems a little more broad.

Thanks!

Yeah, I also was stuck between A and E. I can't really come to a conclusion as to why A is better than E. I am not a huge fan of the wording of E, specifically the "all-encompassing" part of answer E. However, the concept of a multiverse is discussed throughout. Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi all!

MillsV: Answer choice (C) does not accurately describe Carroll and Chen's position. Carroll and Chen did not "challenge the prevailing view of physicists that our universe underwent a period of extremely rapid, massive inflation." Rather, "Carroll and Chen’s innovation is to argue that the most common initial condition is actually likely to resemble cold, empty space." Carroll and Chen's argument is about the initial state before the universe underwent a period of extremely rapid, massive inflation. They are not saying the Big Bang didn't happen. They are just saying that the initial condition was cold, empty space, rather than small, hot, and dense.

glasann & Ari: Answer choice (E), again, comes down to the specifics about Carroll and Chen's contribution. Carroll and Chen were not the ones who first posited that "our universe is one of many universes in an all-encompassing multiverse." That's ascribed to other physicists toward the beginning of the 2nd paragraph: "the suggestion of some physicists that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe as we know it, but not the beginning of a larger Universe—or “multiverse”—that encompasses everything." Again, Carroll and Chen's main contribution is their claim about the initial state of the universe (as described in the explanation for answer choice (C), above).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[salman]

Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding why D is incorrect? isn't that what Carroll and Chen are saying that the initial condition is actually likely to resemble cold empty space in other words a small hot and dense configuration is unlikely as a random initial condition for a universe.

[Adam Tyson]

I see two immediate problems with answer D, salman. First, Carroll and Chen are talking about the multiverse when they say that, not a particular universe within the multiverse. The multiverse probably starts out cold and mostly empty, but a universe could start out as a hot, dense energy fluctuation within that larger framework. It's that layer-within-a-layer that this passage is all about.

Second, even if that were true, it wouldn't be the author's main point. You have to look at what the author wants us to believe, not what Carroll and Chen are talking about. The author wants us to believe that Carroll and Chen may be correct, and that their theory makes sense! It's not "here what these scientists think," but "here's what I think of what these scientists think."

Main point questions are about more than just the subject matter of the passage; they answer the question "what does this author want us to believe?" That's a bigger picture look at the whole passage, and includes the author's view of that subject matter.