#16- Parallel

[cecilia]

Went back and forth between (A) and (D) on this one and unfortunately eliminated (D) because of the idea of the child being "given" something and then further "asking" for the additional money just didn't seem to gel with the intent of cosmologists and their approach.

Whereas, with (A), I reasoned that the child's search for information on how to play chess and his discovery of the book was analogous to the cosmologists and their neutrinos...That even tho they only allowed for 20% of the dark matter, they still offered the "best theoretical solution et to the dark matter problem"(l. 53-55)

Can someone set me straight on the correct approach to parallel questions like this one? The 2016 edition of Powerscore's RC book did suggest that the"intent of the author or group" was a valid element to parallel if one was down to two attractive answers. Did I misinterpret that?

Thanks in advance...

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Cecilia,

Great question, and let's get right to the gist: when it comes to parallel problems such as these, you need to identify and extract the key components and describe their relationship in an abstract manner. Do not overly complicate your work with unnecessary details. Instead, focus on the mechanics of how the different components of the situation relate to one another.

For instance, here we know that the cosmologists have been unable to discover the entirety of what makes up the missing dark matter. However, they are convinced that even an incremental or partial explanation is advancing their attempt to explain the missing dark matter.

Now, translate this scenario into a more mechanical, abstract form without sacrificing the key relationships. Such prephrasing might look like this:

Person not able to achieve entire goal but views partial progress as positive step toward goal.

Now match this prephrasing with the answer choices.

Answer choice A lacks this "partial" quality. You could respond that the book itself is a partial step towards understanding chess, but such a book in fact might hold all the information necessary to learn how to play chess. Thus, this answer choice does not offer a good match.

Answer choice D presents a scenario in which the child is not able to achieve his goal outright (having enough to go to the movie) but instead receives only part and will need to seek more to achieve his desired outcome.

Notice here that the key distinction is not between "giving" and "discovering" but in the core relationship between the parts. Start with a skeletal outline of the structure of the situation. Then, if need be, proceed to give a more detailed description of the stimulus to be paralleled. Go from simple to complex without sacrificing the essentials.

I hope this helps.

[cecilia]

Thanks Jonathan, that helped a lot.

[zsg2@cornell.edu]

Any insight as to what is wrong with B here? I took the approach of the cosmologists to be that they were looking for a full solution to the dark matter problem, found a partial solution, and were open to accepting the even incremental insights learned as a positive. In answer choice B you have a child, like the cosmologists, setting out with one larger goal, failing to meet the standard to accomplish that whole goal, and settling for something less. I guess maybe we don't know if the skateboard is equivalent, lesser, or maybe even better option? Thanks.

[Robert Carroll]

Zac,

In the analogy set up by answer choice (B), buying a bicycle should correlate with solving the dark matter problem. When the cosmologists found what was a partial solution to the problem, they did not apply that solution to a different goal - they were happy with the partial progress toward the original goal. For answer choice (B) to work, you'd need neutrinos to be investigated as an answer to one problem, but, when they don't solve that problem, cosmologists instead used them to solve a different problem.

Robert Carroll

[sqmusgrave]

Zac,

In the analogy set up by answer choice (B), buying a bicycle should correlate with solving the dark matter problem. When the cosmologists found what was a partial solution to the problem, they did not apply that solution to a different goal - they were happy with the partial progress toward the original goal. For answer choice (B) to work, you'd need neutrinos to be investigated as an answer to one problem, but, when they don't solve that problem, cosmologists instead used them to solve a different problem.

Robert Carroll

But the last sentence said "if the evidence holds up, these cosmologists believe, it may add to our understanding of the role elementary particles play in holding the universe together." To me this is sufficient to imply they are excited about putting it towards a new problem. I don't think the theory of gravity is the same thing as "holding the universe together", which means the text is talking about its usefulness for a different problem. I'm struggling to see how this line of thought is wrong and would appreciate some insight!

Additionally, I don't see how we would reasonably be able to pre-phrase their approach as continuing a goal or anything like that. I don't see the text say anything about continuing their efforts or looking elsewhere. Could you please tell me exactly which sentences were supposed to give us this information?

All I can see is that they 1) didn't get what they were looking for but 2) they nonetheless are satisfied and 3) optimistic about their results having different positive affects. Where 1,2, and 3 correspond to the last 3 sentences of the passage. Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi sqmusgrave,

Unfortunately, I think that you may have misread/misunderstood the last sentence. The key words are "it may add to our understanding of the role elementary particles play in holding the universe together" (lines 55-57). How/why the universe is held together the way that it is refers to the same problem being discussed throughout the passage, which includes the concepts of gravitation and dark matter. In lines 5-7, we are told that "gravitation is believed to shape the structures of stars, galaxies, and the entire universe."

The problem, as described in the next few lines, is that the observable mass doesn't correspond to the actual shape of the universe, which is why cosmologists hypothesized "dark matter." The key is that dark matter, neutrinos, and gravity are all related to each other in this passage and related to explaining how the universe is held together. In other words, the problem discussed in the last sentence isn't a new problem at all.

With this established, the final sentence can be understood as meaning that neutrinos seem to be a partial solution/explanation for the missing dark matter, but may be helpful in adding to our eventual more complete explanation.

This may be difficult to realize from the text itself. Fortunately, you can sometimes use the correct answers to other questions (assuming that you get those questions correct, of course) to help aid your understanding of the passage.

For example, the correct answer to question 13, regarding the main point of the passage, describes the neutrino evidence as "a finding that could someday be extended to a complete solution to the dark matter problem."

The correct answer to question 14 describes the contents of the passage as "Neutrinos and the Dark Matter Problem: A Partial Solution?"

Both of these answers are getting at the idea that the neutrinos seem to be a partial solution.

Of course, ideally, you should be able to answer the questions directly from text of the passage itself, but using the information from other correct answers can sometimes shed light on key ideas that may not have been entirely clear.