Reading Comprehension

PT152 · S3 · P4 · Q25 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

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.

25.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

  1. draw novel consequences from an

    Out of Scope: draw novel consequences

    None of this answer seems to match up. The passage is not based on any established principle, nor does the author try to draw any novel ideas. The author is presenting some novel ideas from Carroll and Chen.

    4% picked this

  2. challenge a dominant point of

    Too Strong: challenge view

    Carroll and Chen might be challenging a common notion within physics, but the author isn't writing this passage to challenge any view. The author is presenting and sympathetically considering these ideas being offered by Carroll and Chen. But the author definitely didn't sit down to write a passage that challenges a dominant view.

    19% picked this

  3. chronicle the history of a

    Out of Scope: history / dispute

    This passage takes place in the present, with emerging ideas in physics. There's no "dispute" whose history is being chronicled.

    2% picked this

  4. adjudicate between two theories

    Too Opinionated: adjudicate

    Since our author is pretty neutral throughout, we definitely couldn't say that she wrote this essay in order to "judge which theory is correct".

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    give the rationale for a

    Why this is right

    Not super lovable, but our best available. Since the author is mainly presenting Carroll and Chen's ideas, it's nice to see the neutral clause, "Give the rationale for a theory". That's not saying the author endorses the theory or challenges it. She just presents the ideas behind it. Since this passage feels neutral / presentational, this answer choice best matches that purpose.

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

    71% 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