PT149.S2.P2.Q9 > Analytics

Hide analysis

In a typical Hollywood action movie, the hero skirts death to complete a mission. ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ █ ██████ ████████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████████

Analogy · Our universe resembles an action movie

In an action movie, one little change in events could kill the hero; in our universe, one little change in laws of physics could make life impossible

Support analogy · E.g. of strong nuclear force

Small change in strong nuclear force would have major impacts

███████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████ █ ████████ ███████ ███████████

Phenomenon · Ability of our universe to support life is improbable yet true

We could ask: if such a universe is so unlikely, how did it come to be?

████ ████████████ ████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ██████ █ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ █ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████

Cosmologists' Hypothesis · Multiverse theory

Many universes, so better chances of at least one (ours) supporting life

Basis of cosmologists' hypothesis · Hard to identify alternative laws of physics that still support life

If it's hard to identify any other laws of physics that would support life, then a universe that does support life seems unlikely

███ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███████ █ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████ ███

Criticism · Basis of cosmologists' hypothesis is flawed

Conventional approach is to change only one known feature ("constant") of physics at a time, but this approach is flawed

Author's hypothesis · Ability of our universe to support life is not actually improbable

Author's methodology suggests many different sets of physical laws could support life, so the ability to support life is not as unlikely as others think

████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████████ █ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ██████████

Limit criticism · Multiverse theory not necessarily wrong

Even if a universe that supports life is more probable than cosmologists believed, there are still reasons to accept the multiverse theory

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)

The author would be most ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████

Question Type

Author’s perspective

Implied

The author notes that the conventional way is to tweak only one constant at a time. This approach leads scientists to think that the chance a set of laws would allow life is very small. But, the author thinks “there is no reason to tweak just one parameter at a time.” Based on tweaking multiple constants at a time, the author shows that the chance a set of laws can support life is much higher.

It focuses on ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████

The author doesn’t believe the conventional approach looks at irrelevant issues. The chance a set of laws can support life is still relevant.

It is too █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████████

There’s no indication the author believes the conventional approach is “too unfocused.” The author complains about the methodology, but not the level of focus.

It has been █████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██████

There’s no indication the author believes the conventional approach isn’t rigorous enough mathematically. She may disagree with how it approaches the tweaking of constants, but this doesn’t indicate a belief in lack of methodological rigor.

Its methodology results ██ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████

This best captures the author’s belief. The author thinks “there is no reason to tweak just one parameter at a time.” Tweaking one parameter at a time leads scientists to think there’s a very low chance a set of laws supports life. But by tweaking multiple parameters at a time, the author shows that the chance a set of laws supports life is much higher. In this way, the conventional approach results in a more “restricted set out of outcomes” — it doesn’t capture the full range of outcomes that can support life.

87%

It will eventually ███████ █ ████████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ █████

There’s no evidence the author thinks the conventional approach will produce a model of an alternate universe with life. She notes that scientists have had difficulty identifying an alternative set of laws that supports life. At no point does she suggest that scientists will eventually overcome this difficulty and successfully identify an alternative set of laws that supports life.

10%

PrepTest 149 - Section 2 - Passage 2 - Question 9

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action