Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT149 S2 P2 Q6 ExplanationThe Multiverse

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

TopicsMain PointScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

In a typical Hollywood action movie, the hero skirts death to complete a mission. Bad guys shoot, cars explode, objects fall from the sky, but all just miss. If any one of those things happened would be dead. Yet the hero survives.

In some respects, the story of our universe resembles an action movie. A slight change to any one of the laws of physics would likely have caused some disaster that would have disrupted the normal evolution of the universe and made life impossible. For example, if the strong nuclear force had been physics must be so finely tuned that the very existence of such a universe becomes improbable.

Some cosmologists have tried to reconcile the existence of our universe with the seeming improbability of its existence by hypothesizing that our universe is but one of many universes within a wider array called the multiverse. In almost all of those universes, the laws of physics might not allow the formation of a good chance to get the “right” set of laws at least once.

But just how exceptional is the set of physical laws governing our universe? The view that the laws of physics are finely tuned arises largely from the difficulty scientists have had that would be compatible with life.

The conventional way scientists explore whether a particular constant of physics is finely tuned is to tweak it while leaving all other constants unaltered. The scientists then “play the movie” of that universe—they do calculations, what-if scenarios, or computer simulations—to see what disasters occur. But there is no reason to tweak just compatible with the formation of complex structures and perhaps even some forms of intelligent life.

Fine tuning has been invoked by some cosmologists as indirect evidence for the multiverse. Do our findings therefore call the concept of the multiverse into question? I do not think this is necessarily the case for two reasons. First, certain models of the birth of the universe would lead us to expect be the source of solutions to certain other long-standing puzzles in cosmology.

What this question is testing

Main Point

Your task

Capture the passage's overall primary point — the claim everything else supports.

Common trap

Answers that are true but too narrow (a single paragraph) or too broad (beyond the passage's scope).

Winning move

Summarize the whole passage in one sentence first, then match it to a choice.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
6.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct67% picked this

    Although the universe seems finely tuned for the existence of life, there may be more sets of physical laws that would be

    Why this is right

    This gets the central topic of "fine tuning" right, and it gets the Challenge Position vibe right. People thought our universe was so delicately in balance because they were only changing one constant at a time. But this author found out that by changing several constants at once she has "identified numerous scenarios where the physical laws would be very different from our own and yet compatible with the formation of complex structures and perhaps even some forms of intelligent life." If we were surprised that the correct answer doesn't address the multiverse, that's fair. A better answer could have brought in that subsidiary theme. But, when we think about why did the author sit down to write this passage, it was because she had found out that the way scientists have been thinking about fine tuning was wrong. She doesn't necessarily think the way that scientists have been thinking about the multiverse is wrong (insofar as she thinks the multiverse theory could still turn out to be correct). So if she only had one thing she could communicate, it would be the discovery that her and her colleague made: by manipulating multiple constants at once, you can find a bunch of hypothetical universes that would be similarly "fine tuned" like ours.

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

  2. Wrong Emphasis16% picked this

    Although the multiverse hypothesis was developed to explain the apparent fine tuning of the physical laws of our universe, it may be useful for

    All of this is true, but this answer is focused on the multiverse, which was not the main character of the passage. What is the first paragraph about: the multiverse or fine tuning? What about the second paragraph? Every paragraph involves fine tuning, but only the 3rd and 6th discuss the multiverse.

  3. Too Narrow1% picked this

    When scientists have tried modeling hypothetical universes by altering physical laws, they have been unable to find alternate sets of laws

    This is just the background, the Old, the Position being challenged. It's not the author and her colleague's new discovery. It's not the new idea that challenges the position. This answer expresses the background context of the passage, but the foreground is that, "When me and my colleague tried modeling hypothetical universes by altering physical laws, we found that we were quite able to find alternate sets of laws that are consistent with life!"

  4. Opposite9% picked this

    The improbability of life occurring in the universe supports the idea that our universe is just one of many

    The whole point of this passage is to Challenge the position being expressed here. Some cosmologists (not our author) have taken the improbability of life occurring in the universe to support the idea of the multiverse. Our author, starting in the 4th paragraph, begins her challenge: Is it actually improbable that life occurs in the universe? "Just how exceptional is the set of physical laws governing our universe"? The author proceeds to explain her method of finding other possible universes, and realizes that the reader might be thinking, "Oh, well if the author has basically contradicted the evidence some cosmologists were invoking as indirect evidence for the multiverse, do her findings therefore call the concept of the multiverse into question?" The author is saying, "No, there still may be good reasons to believe in a multiverse. But improbability of life occurring in the universe doesn't seem to be a good reason any more."

  5. Too Narrow7% picked this

    The story of our universe resembles an action movie in that, despite all of the circumstances that could have had disastrous consequences for

    The action movie analogy was just a stage-setting attention getter. It's not actually a main point. The author and her colleague have made an important discovery, and the point of this passage is to report to the world on their discover: it's not actually as hard as we thought to generate an alternate set of physical laws that would be compatible with complex life

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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