#25 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[hlee18]

Hello,

I'm trying to identify why E is correct not A. I have a feeling it's because of the wording of "novel consequences" and "principle" versus "theory".

Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi H. Lee,

Let me start out by saying that primary purpose questions are asking for an inference based on the main point; they are asking you to infer the answer to the question "Why did the author take the time and effort to write and publish this piece of writing?" In order to effectively answer that, one must first correctly identify the main point of the passage, and then infer why the author would believe that main point is important.

The main point here is the explanation for the origins of our universe and how the Big Bang came about that Carroll and Chen have put forward. So why did they do that, and why did the author think their work is important? Because it shows how the Big Bang theory makes sense in spite of potential objections. It gives a fuller, more complete, more believable version of the theory by explaining how the original state that would lead to a Big Bang could come about. So as a Prephrase to this question, I would use something like: "The passage's purpose is to explain how the Big Bang theory is not just plausible, but likely."

When choosing between answer choices (A) and (E), having a strong Prephrase is very useful. The passage is trying to explain how the previously-believed weakest link in the Big Bang theory, the original low entropy state, is actually a likely scenario, so it is in effect bolstering the body of evidence for the theory by filling in a logical gap. While this isn't the exact wording of (E), it comes close to the meaning; it explains why a theory (Big Bang) is reasonable. (A)'s meaning is quite different: the only "established principle," in contrast to a theory, mentioned in the passage is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But there aren't any "novel consequences" drawn from it, and even if there were, that's clearly not the primary purpose of the passage.

Hope this clears things up!

[hlee18]

Great, thanks! If for a, the established principle is the entropy/2nd law of thermodynamics, it seems from based on your explanation, that the passage itself is not trying to necessary do the required science and discovery to come to a "novel consequence", rather justifying a theory established by someone else, which may have previously been a "novel consequence". It sounds like I may have confused where the "novel consequence" comes from, which is the two researchers instead of the author of the passage.

[snowy]

Why can’t B be correct, since they challenge the dominant POV of the initial condition being a small, hot, dense universe? (Paragraph 4)

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Snowy!

With a "Primary Purpose" question, we are looking for an answer choice that doesn't just describe one aspect of the passage, but more accurately describes the main function of the passage as a whole. You are correct that the theory posited by Carroll and Chen which is described in this passage does in some ways challenge a dominant point of view. But the main purpose of the passage is not to describe the ways in which that dominant point of view is incorrect. Rather, this passage is more concerned with explaining (or giving the rationale for) Carroll and Chen's theory. That theory challenges some aspects of the dominant point of view (namely that the universe started out as small, hot, and dense), but it actually also works within and supports aspects of that dominant view point (that a Big Bang occurrence did mark the beginning of our universe as we know it).

Notice that the correct answer to this question is also closely aligned to the correct answer to the Main Point question (#20). The Main Point is not that most other scientists are wrong. Rather, the Main Point is about explaining Carroll and Chen's theory. Primary Purpose questions are strongly related to Main Point questions and can be thought of as just a more abstract MP question.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[babycorn]

I'm confused... How did the passage show that the original low entropy state is actually a likely scenario? I thought the passage did the opposite of that by showing how a high entropy state is a likely scenario (Caroll and Chen's theory).

Hi H. Lee,

Let me start out by saying that primary purpose questions are asking for an inference based on the main point; they are asking you to infer the answer to the question "Why did the author take the time and effort to write and publish this piece of writing?" In order to effectively answer that, one must first correctly identify the main point of the passage, and then infer why the author would believe that main point is important.

The main point here is the explanation for the origins of our universe and how the Big Bang came about that Carroll and Chen have put forward. So why did they do that, and why did the author think their work is important? Because it shows how the Big Bang theory makes sense in spite of potential objections. It gives a fuller, more complete, more believable version of the theory by explaining how the original state that would lead to a Big Bang could come about. So as a Prephrase to this question, I would use something like: "The passage's purpose is to explain how the Big Bang theory is not just plausible, but likely."

When choosing between answer choices (A) and (E), having a strong Prephrase is very useful. The passage is trying to explain how the previously-believed weakest link in the Big Bang theory, the original low entropy state, is actually a likely scenario, so it is in effect bolstering the body of evidence for the theory by filling in a logical gap. While this isn't the exact wording of (E), it comes close to the meaning; it explains why a theory (Big Bang) is reasonable. (A)'s meaning is quite different: the only "established principle," in contrast to a theory, mentioned in the passage is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But there aren't any "novel consequences" drawn from it, and even if there were, that's clearly not the primary purpose of the passage.

Hope this clears things up!

[atierney]

Hi Babycorn,

I want to start out by saying that it isn't particularly essential to understand this particular point in understanding both James' explanation and the answer to this particular question. Having said that, the idea is that the low entropy is more believable or a more reasonable starting point given that it represents a minuscule fluctuation of a much larger (and colder and darker) multiverse, as described in the penultimate paragraph. In other words, the universe began in such a low entropy state, unlike what we would expect, because it's actually just a marble in a much bigger bag of marbles, the Multiverse! Because of this, we would actually expect, or it's not unlikely to expect, such a low entropy state, which was the point of origin for our universe, in at least one of the marbles as a part of the natural fluctuations across the bag as a whole (which is observed in our universe), thus making the origin story more likely!

Let me know if you have further questions.