RC Question 10 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The author’s main point is in paragraph 5. The 6th and final paragraph just tidies up a question you may have been left with: if the author is right that fine tuning is incorrect, then does this imply multiverses don’t exist?
The author’s answer is no: multiverses could exist, but for other reasons. This is more of a postscript though and not their main point.
___________
- This answer would be correct if the question had asked about paragraph 5. But the author isn’t really arguing against anyone’s view in paragraph 5. No one in the passage said “multiverses don’t exist”.
- Not quite. The author’s research has implications for conventional ideas about multiverses. But if you look at the two reasons the author gives for the existence of multiverses, neither of them have anything to do with the author’s theory.
In other words: 1. The author’s theory destroys one argument for multiverses, but 2. The author thinks there are unrelated arguments that make a multiverse likely. - CORRECT. Some would say the author’s research in paragraph 5 means that there is no multiverse. But in paragraph 6 the author argues that this implication is wrong, and that multiverses do exist, for other reasons.
- There are two arguments in the final paragraph, but they are the arguments the author gives to support their own position! They aren’t counterarguments.
- What experiment? The author didn’t mention any in paragraph 6. And how would you experiment with universes with different physical laws? Become God and create a new big bang?
Hello, I do not understand why (A) is not the correct answer.
I thought that in the final paragraph, the author is arguing against the view that their research calls the multiverse into question. They then list two reasons why the view is not necessarily true, which I took to mean ‘inadequacy’. Thanks in advance.
Hi! The key issue with A is that there’s no one saying multiverses don’t exist in paragraph 6, and as such there’s no view the author is arguing against. The author is just saying a certain inference doesn’t necessarily follow from their research and then gives the two reasons for why we should be cautious about drawing that inference. That’s more a matter of clarifying the implications and limits of the research than demonstrating the weakness of an opposing theory.
So it’s really a matter of wording here. “Demonstrating the inadequacy of the view that the author is arguing against” means Someone takes X view. The author argues against X view by showing that it doesn’t make sense. But that’s not what happened, for the reasons mentioned above.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.