Reading Comprehension

PT152 · S3 · P4 · Q22 Carroll and Chen's Multiverse

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

Start practicing free

Physicists posit that at first our universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely hot and dense.

Topic

Starting conditions of the universe

Framework

Old/New

Main Point

Carroll and Chen are positing that the origins of our universe was a fluctuation of energy in cold, empty space, within a vast low entropy multiverse.

Summary

The first two paragraphs introduce some background information on the Big Bang inflationary period at the beginning of our universe, the view of C&C that this type of event isn't unique, and the emerging picture of the multiverse.

The third paragraph describes how C&C got to their view, via work on entropy, and then it explains what entropy is and provides an example.

The fourth paragraph brings together the two different threads: because of what we know about entropy, what we believe about the Big Bang seems like quite a mystery. The starting conditions for the Big Bang seem like extremely unlikely starting conditions. C&C's innovation (New) is saying that the most common starting condition would be cold, empty space.

The fifth paragraph, brings in the Recent (New) research of two other people, G&V, who are able to potentially explain how cold/empty space could give way to a fluctuation as big as the Big Bang.

The last paragraph ties it together: C&C think that our universe could have emerged from an energy fluctuation in cold, empty space, occurring in a high entropy multiverse, and they think this phenomenon would likely have occurred more than once.

22.

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

  1. an ardent adversary

    Too Strong / Opposite

    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).

    6% picked this

  2. a dismissive critic

    Too Strong / Opposite

    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% picked this

  3. a disinterested skeptic

    Out of Scope: skeptic

    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.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    a sympathetic reporter

    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.

    68% picked this

  5. a zealous proponent

    Too Strong

    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.

    21% picked this

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