Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT149 S2 P2 Q8 ExplanationThe Multiverse

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

TopicsNon-Author OpinionScience

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

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

Non-Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
8.

The passage suggests that the cosmologists mentioned in the third paragraph would be most likely to agree with which one

Answer choices, explained

  1. Out of Scope: affected (causal)1% picked this

    Our universe is affected by what occurs in

    These cosmologists weren't saying that other universes had any effect on ours. They were just saying, “if there's a zillion different universes, it makes sense that one of them could be as unlikely as ours.”

  2. Too Strong: each is more likely4% picked this

    The existence of multiple universes makes each universe more likely to

    This answer would be fine if it said “makes it more likely that at least one could contain life”. The passage said that “in almost all of these universes, the laws might not allow … life”, so that does not sound like “each universe is more likely to contain life”.

  3. Contradicted3% picked this

    The laws of physics must be the same in every part

    Their explanation and conception of the multiverse hinges on the idea that each of these separate universes could have different laws.

  4. Correct90% picked this

    There are enough universes to make it probable that life exists in at least

    Why this is right

    This is how they're solving the riddle of “how could we have ended up with a universe that seems so unlikely”. They're saying, “if we're part of a multiverse, and each of the zillions of universes has its own laws, then it makes sense that at least one of them would have our specific combo of fine tuning.” The best supporting sentence for this is the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph: given the sheer number of possibilities, (there are enough universes) nature would have had a good chance to get the “right” set of laws at least once. (probable that life exists)

    Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  5. Too Strong: only one2% picked this

    There is only one universe in the multiverse that

    The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph practically contradicts this answer, by saying that nature would hit the “right” (life-enabling) set of laws at least once.

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