#9 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - may anyone explain why Answer Choice E is wrong? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

christinecwt,

The conventional way is not good from the perspective of the authors of this passage. The passage indicates (5th paragraph) that the conventional way is too limited in that it only changes one constant at a time, rather than changing multiple constants at the same time. The authors change multiple constants at the same time and get better results. So when answer choice (E) says it will eventually produce a model of another universe with life, that extrapolation doesn't seem to work. So far, it hasn't produced such models. In fact, the only way to get such models is NOT to use the conventional method. So answer choice (E) tells us something we can't prove, and, in fact, something that seems more likely to be untrue than true.

Robert Carroll

[SwanQueen]

Greetings!

Why is (A) incorrect?

Indeed, it is still relevant for other issues/questions within the umbrella of cosmology (as outlined in paragraph 6). However, not for the specific question on how the universe obtained "the right set of laws" despite the improbability. (thus "irrelevant to the issue at hand").

I thought (A) may be wrong because "irrelevant to the issue at hand" is too strong...? (But then the author also goes on to say in paragraph 5 "But there is NO REASON to tweak just one parameter at a time".)

I opted for (D) because it worked best. Yet, I'm not sure why (A) is wrong. What makes (D) a better answer choice than (A)?

Thank you in advance!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi SwanQueen!

Happy to address answer choices (A) and (D).

To begin, the author discusses the "conventional way" that scientists investigate fine tuning in the fifth paragraph. This involves tweaking it "while leaving all other constants unaltered" (line 35). The author sees this as a limitation, arguing that "there is no reason to tweak just one parameter at a time" (lines 38-39).

This limiting aspect is reflected in answer choice (D): "Its methodology results in an overly restricted set of outcomes." The author's research expands from this restricted set by "manipulating multiple constants at once" (line 40).

By contrast, answer choice (A) states, "It focuses on looking for outcomes that are irrelevant to the issue at hand." Being too strongly worded might be a way of putting it, but it's not clear that this statement is even correct--the outcomes in conventional research aren't necessarily irrelevant, they just might not be exhaustive in representing the possibilities.