Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT152 S3 P4 Q22 Explanation

Carroll and Chen's Multiverse

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

TopicsAuthor's AttitudeScience

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

Physicists posit that at first our universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely hot and dense. It then underwent a period of extremely rapid, massive inflation (the Big continued to expand and cool.

According to physicists Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen, the Big Bang was not a unique event; events like it happen periodically over an incredibly vast time scale. This is based on the suggestion of some physicists that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe as we know it, but not which we can never see because it is beyond our “cosmic bubble.”

Carroll and Chen were initially interested in why time flows in only one direction. In physics the flow of time is captured by the second law of thermodynamics, which implies that entropy—a measure of total disorder—naturally increases with time. Entropy increases because there are more ways for a system to be disordered room are continually moved randomly, it is most likely that the room will get increasingly disordered.

While the Big Bang process and what followed obey the second law of thermodynamics, it is a mystery why there should have been a small, hot, and dense universe to begin with. Such a low entropy universe is an extremely unlikely configuration, not what scientists would expect from a randomly occurring initial cold, empty space—not an obviously favorable starting point for the onset of inflation.

Recent research has shown that even empty space has faint traces of energy that fluctuate on the subatomic scale. Physicists Jaume Garriga and Alexander Vilenkin have suggested that these fluctuations can generate their own big bangs in tiny areas widely separated in time and space. to be such fluctuations in a high entropy multiverse.

On this view, while the initial state that produced our universe would appear to be, taken by itself, a highly improbable one, in the vastness of the multiverse the creation of our universe is likely not even a unique event.

What this question is testing

Author's Attitude

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
22.

The author’s stance toward Carroll and Chen’s theory is most accurately characterized

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong / Opposite7% picked this

    an ardent

    The author is practically invisible, whereas this answer is saying the passage is written by someone who strongly objects to C&C (an ardent adversary).

  2. Too Strong / Opposite4% picked this

    a dismissive

    The author is practically invisible, whereas this answer is saying the passage is written by someone who dismissively rejects C&C's ideas. We would always need to be able to point to specific textual proof that an author was "dismissive", which is a very harsh negative.

  3. Out of Scope: skeptic3% picked this

    a disinterested

    The word "disinterested" doesn't mean "I'm not interested in this". If it did, then it would never be correct on attitude (after all, authors are clearly interested in whatever topic they're choosing to write about). But "disinterested" actually means "neutral / unbiased". If you were trying to settle a bet over who painted the better painting, you and your painting rival would go find a disinterested party who has nothing to gain by awarding the victory to you or your rival. Since the author was pretty much just presenting information, disinterested is something we could probably live with, but we have no support for "skeptic". What language would we point to where the author was being skeptical? The best we could do would be to point to the end of the 4th were the author is saying that "cold, empty space is not an obviously fertile starting point for the onset of inflation". But the author immediately counters that idea by saying, "recent research has shown that even empty space [might have the power to be the onset of inflation]." This passage feels more like it's written by someone who is intrigued by this new line of thinking from Carroll and Chen. The author hasn't committed to agreeing with them yet, but there's no evidence of skepticism.

  4. Correct67% picked this

    a sympathetic

    Why this is right

    The overall tone of the passage was reportorial / presentational. What does it mean to be a "sympathetic listener" or a "sympathetic reporter"? What does it mean to be "sympathetic" to someone's point of view? It means that you're willing to go along with it. You can see where it's coming from. You're willing to grant it some plausibility. So since the author presented Carroll and Chen's "innovation" in the 4th paragraph, presented a 5th paragraph that answers a potential objection to their theory, and then presented a final paragraph that summarizes their takeaways (without ever pushing back against them or presenting views that push back against them), the author seems to be provisionally on-board with what Carroll and Chen are saying. Honestly, sympathetic vs. unsympathetic reporter would be mainly impossible to tell the difference between, because "reporter" conveys the idea of neutral, objective writing. The 'sympathetic' part is just some mind-reading we're doing based on what kind of person would write this passage.

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

  5. Too Strong20% picked this

    a zealous

    This answer properly leans in the positive direction, but since the author is practically invisible in this passage we definitely cannot support the extreme idea that the author is a zealous (passionate) proponent.

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