#10 - Specific Reference, Must, Purpose, Organization

[Robert Carroll]

dimi.wassef,

Well, to what questions can the author's research be extended, in your view? The author's research involves the idea that manipulating multiple physical constants at once may provide alternative physical systems that are still compatible with life. The author didn't invent the concept of the multiverse - that already existed. The author's research potentially calls into question "fine tuning". But that was discussed earlier. The discussion in this paragraph is about whether the author's research, casting doubt on fine tuning, would also cast doubt on the existence of the multiverse. The author doesn't propose extending the research to the multiverse question, but instead talks about the independent evidence the multiverse has - evidence not even related to the author's research. The author thinks, in fact, that his/her research will have little to do with the multiverse hypothesis. So there's no issue of extending the author's research to something else, but basically realizing that it doesn't extend as far as some people might think.

Robert Carroll

[vdingillo]

Hi. Im having trouble understanding the differences in the answers B and C. The last paragraph extends past both the author and the scientists research so wouldn't B be right? If the paragraph was to discuss the authors implications, wouldn't it talk more about the consequences of having different laws that are compatible with the formation of structures of our own universe or something of that sort? Thanks, VD

[katehos]

Hi VD!

The final paragraph does discuss the consequences of their research, as the author states that the findings do not necessarily call the concept of the multiverse into question! In this case, the "implication" of the research is that discussion of the multiverse.

It may also be useful to consider the organization/structure of the passage as a whole to help clarify. In the beginning of the passage, we learn that it seems the laws of physics must be incredibly finely tuned to support life. Then, we learn that some cosmologists have tried to reconcile the improbability of this and the existence of our universe by positing that there is a multiverse. The author then challenges the view that the laws of physics are so finely tuned by pointing out how their research included multiple tweaks in physical laws and yet they were still able to create hypothetical scenarios that were compatible with life. In the end of the passage, they point out that, while they are challenging the idea that physical laws are so finely tuned, they are not challenging the idea of the multiverse as a whole. From this last sentence, it may be easier to see how the final paragraph discusses the implications of the author's research!

Additionally, if (B) were correct, we'd expect to see something that actually indicates the kinds of questions to which their research can be extended. This does not take place in the paragraph, in fact, the only concept the author suggests could be extended to answering other "puzzles" is the idea of the multiverse as a whole (which was not the product of the author's research).

I hope this helps!
Kate