#26 - Specific Reference

[LSAT2018]

The question asks to differentiate Sommerer and Ott's model and the riddled basin of attraction. I would like to clarify if the riddled basin of attraction is referred to in paragraphs two and three, and the model is referred to in paragraph 4. I think I was having difficulty differentiating these two which made it difficult to answer the question.

So given the answer (C), 'In the model, it is impossible to predict the destination of a particle placed at any point in the system; in a riddled basin of attraction, only some points are such that it is impossible to predict the destination of water spilled at each of those points' the model refers to lines 44-46 where it says 'under chaos, a particle’s general destination would be predictable but its path and exact destination would not' and the riddled basin of attraction refers to lines 23-26 where it says 'in some geographical formations it is sometimes impossible to predict, not only the exact destination of the spilled water, but even which body of water it will end up in. Am I looking in the right places?

[Adam Tyson]

Yes and no, LSAT_2018. The model is mentioned briefly in the first paragraph and then in greater detail in the last paragraph, whereas riddled basins of attraction are discussed in the middle, so you have that right. However, the model is not the same as chaos, as shown by this line: "Sommerer and Ott make a distinction between this type of uncertainty and that known as "chaos". Instead, look to the earlier lines starting around line 36:

In the system posited by the two physicists, this boundary expands to include the whole system: i.e., the entire force field is riddled with fractal properties, (40) and it is impossible to predict even the general destination of the particle given its starting point.

[shanhickey]

I think I had a lot of trouble understanding this passage. I'm not sure I understand how different parts of Answer C holds true. First, how is the first part of the AC true if the passage says: "under chaos, a particle’s general destination would be predictable but its path and exact destination would not." So, is that first part of the AC referring to exact destinations? Second, how does the second part of the AC relate to the passage? "in a riddled basin of attraction, only some points are such that it is impossible to predict the destination of water spilled at each of those points." I'm not sure I knew where this came from. I thought Sommerer and Ott argued that particles were more predictable than the riddled basins of attraction because we know a particle's general destination in chaos than in uncertainty?

[katehos]

Hi Shan,

In general, Sommerer and Ott created a model where it is impossible to predict 'even the general destination of particles,' no matter the starting point (Lines 37-41). They specifically distinguish this type of particle behavior from 'chaos' by noting that 'chaos' uncertainty still allows for predictions about general destination (Lines 42-45). Thus, we can interpret their model as not being chaotic, but rather being even more difficult to predict (such that it reaches impossibility). When we look at the beginning of answer choice (C), we can see that is exactly what it says - it's impossible to predict destination of a particle no matter where it's placed in their model!

As for the second part of answer choice (C), we can find support for this throughout the third paragraph. This paragraph functions to extend the explanation of what riddled basins of attractions are and how they were used by Sommerer and Ott to create their model that was introduced in paragraph 2. Lines 23-26 explain that in some geographical formations, it is 'sometimes impossible to predict' the exact destination of water. This shows that it is only impossible to predict the destination of water in riddled basins of attraction at certain points.

We can further reinforce that answer choice (C) demonstrates the correct difference by looking at lines 37-43. These lines specify that the model 'expands' the riddled boundary in the basins to the entire model.

I hope that helps!
Kate

[lsatquestions]

Hi, I was able to quickly eliminate A and E because they mischaracterize the model. I had B and D as contenders. Can you help me eliminate those choices?

B) is this incorrect because none of the points in the model behave chaotically? What about the first half of the AC - is EVERY point chaotic?

D) second half is correct. first half incorrect because it doesn't always make its way to the same destination, depending on geographic formation

[Robert Carroll]

lsatquestions,

Nothing in Sommerer and Ott's model is chaotic - it's more unpredictable than chaos. Further, in a riddled basin of attraction, the boundary is not chaotic, but even more unpredictable. Thus, answer choice (B) is misdescribing both models as chaotic when they're not chaotic at all.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the end of the third paragraph demonstrates that in a riddled basin of attraction, water spilled at two adjacent points does not have to reach the same destination at all.

Robert Carroll

[jillilea]

I am struggling to correctly interpret the third paragraph.

I read the second paragraph as introducing Sommerer and Ott's use of the riddled basin of attraction and as defining a basin of attraction as " the area of land that, whenever water is spilled on it, always directs the spilled water to that body."
I interpreted this definition as applying to basins of attraction but not riddled basins of attraction.

I then identified the definition of a riddled basin of attraction in the third paragraph as when "the boundary between one basin of attraction and another is riddled with fractal properties; in other words, the boundary is permeated by an extraordinarily high number of physical irregularities such as notches or zigzags."

In this reading, I interpreted " In some geographical formations it is sometimes impossible to predict, not only the exact destination of the spilled water, but even which body of water it will end up in" and "Along such a boundary, the only way to determine where spilled water will flow at any given point is actually to spill it and observe its motion" as referring to riddled basins of attraction generally. This led me to believe that "some geographical formations" included all riddled basins of attraction and that all points along these riddled basins ("any given point") would be impossible to predict, leading me to eliminate answer choice C.

How could I have avoided this misreading? What did I miss?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jillilea,

This is definitely a challenging and confusing passage. (In fact, it's included on our list of the hardest RC passages of all time!)

One thing that makes the passage confusing is that "riddled basins of attractions" are first mentioned in the second paragraph (lines 13-14), but they aren't actually defined/described until the third paragraph, as you correctly noted. Instead, the rest of the second paragraph just explains basins of attraction in general.

The key to understanding "riddled basins of attraction" is that they are "basins of attraction" meaning that they are "area(s) of land that, whenever water is spilled on it, always directs the spilled water to that body" (lines 20-22) with the key difference of having notches/zigzags along their boundaries. You can think of riddled basins of attraction as basins of attraction with frayed/tattered edges.

In other words, riddled basins of attraction aren't just referring to the edge/boundary but to the entire area, both the boundary and the interior/center. Notice the repeated use of the word "boundary" in paragraph three to emphasize that the boundary that is the area at issue. It's only along the boundary that it is impossible to predict the destination, not the entire riddled basin.

In the fourth paragraph, the first sentence shows how Sommerer and Ott's model relates to, but also differs from, the riddled basins of attraction in that the "boundary" (i.e. the area of uncertainty) expands to the whole system (lines 37-38).

If it's helpful, you could think of riddled basins of attraction as two sides of a mountain meeting at a narrow ridge. If a drop of rain falls on one slope, it goes down that side of the mountain, if it falls on the other slope, it goes down the other side of the mountain, but if it falls right on that narrow ridge (the boundary), it could go either way depending on exactly where it falls on the ridge.