Reading Comprehension

PT130 · S2 · P2 · Q11 Philip Emeagwali

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

This passage was adapted from articles published in the 1990s.

Topic

Philip Emeagwali’s breakthroughs in computer design by modeling network systems after patterns found in nature.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy

Main Point

Emeagwali achieved major advances in parallel computing by designing computer systems inspired by natural processes like tree branching and honeycombs, and he believes this nature-inspired approach will shape the future of technology. (Most Valuable Sentence: Appears at the end of the final paragraph—)

P1: Emeagwali’s Early Breakthrough—Parallel Computers Inspired by Nature

In the 1980s, Emeagwali pioneered the use of massively parallel computers that could solve tough problems like modeling oil flow, showing that using lots of computers working together (inspired by nature) was way faster and more effective than traditional supercomputers operating one step at a time.

P2: How Nature’s Structures Inspired an Efficient Solution

To handle extremely complicated calculations needed for oil flow modeling, Emeagwali connected over 65,000 computers via the Internet and used the idea of how trees branch out efficiently to guide how the network shared tasks—showing that copying nature’s branching patterns led to a breakthrough in how parallel computing could work.

P3: Applying Nature’s Patterns Further—Honeycomb Computers and the Future

In 1996, Emeagwali designed a new computer system (this time modeled after the hexagonal structure of bee honeycombs) that he claims could predict weather far into the future. He argues that future discoveries in technology will come from imitating nature’s efficient designs.

11.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the function of the first two sentences of the second paragraph?

  1. They provide an example of

    Out of Scope: Established paradigm

    The first two sentences are just talking to us about the specific technical challenges of modeling oil flow. They aren't presenting any established paradigm that Emeagwali is challenging. We could potentially say that "sequential computing" is a paradigm that Emeagwali is 'challenging' by using "parallel computing" instead, but that's a bad stretch of language, and the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph aren't saying anything about sequential computing.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    They help explain why supercomputers

    Why this is right

    This is closest to what we were looking for, and like 85% of Local Purpose questions, the correct answer sounds like language from the sentence before the detail they're asking us about. The end of the 1st paragraph was stressing how the problem of modeling oil flow was so complex that sequential supercomputers were still too slow to handle it. The first sentences of the 2nd paragraph help us understand the complexity (at each of tens of thousands of different locations we have to make hundreds of simultaneous calculations).

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  3. They provide examples of a

    Out of Scope: network design

    Nothing in these two highlighted sentences provides an example of a network design. It's just telling us what math operations one has to do in order to model how an oil field flows. Later in the passage we'll learn that Emeagwali tacked this problem using the branching structure of trees, but we haven't heard about that yet, and these sentences just describe a computational task, not the design of a network that is attempting to carry out that computational task.

    6% picked this

  4. They describe a mathematical model

    Out of Scope: mathematical model

    The two sentences aren't describing any mathematical model. They're describing what is needed in order to mathematically model/simulate oil flow. A mathematical model would need to be able to do what is talked about in these two sentences, but these two sentences don't talk about a mathematical model. Emeagwali used a mathematical principle underlying the natural system of tree branching in order to mathematically model the flow of an oil field.

    7% picked this

  5. They provide specific examples of

    Out of Scope: paradigm shift

    The first two sentences of this 2nd paragraph are talking to us about the specific technical challenges of modeling oil flow. They aren't presenting any paradigm that would guide scientists in future inquiries. They're just saying, "In order to get a computer to successfully predict the flow of oil, you have to do X, Y, and Z."

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free