Q15

[cyruswhittaker]

For number 15, we are asked to decide which of the choices describe a view that the author would most likely hold.

I don't see how D can be supported. I've used POE to eliminate the other choices, but how does the passage support D?

In paragraph 1, we're introduced to the idea that dark matter might help to solve the discrepancy, and then in the final paragraph nothing stands out to me to show that the author thinks a completely different theory might come under way to help explain the organization. All I get from it is that the author feels that despite the fact that only 20% could possibly be explained through neutrinos, it might add to our overall understanding.

Is it because the theme in the passage is of determining other sources of mass, which are directly linked to the theory of gravitation?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It sounds like you've been able to reason this one through, and simply taking the time to walk it through, leads you to the right understanding.

The whole passage is about finding the missing mass. The author discusses various opinions about whether neutrinos comprise the remaining mass, but the author is all about finding the mass so we can use the theory of gravitation to account for the organization of stars, galaxies, and the universe.

Good work.

[shaynfernandez]

I am having a difficult time seeing D. I don't see where the authors tone would suggest that it is "unlikely" that any force than gravity account for organizing galaxies.

[lhermary]

Yes. Please go into more detail as to why D is right

[vania_apple]

I'll take a stab at this.

Lines 15-17 states that gravitational force is 'necessary' to make the 'huge structures cohere', which refers to the the organisation of the universe in the galaxies (lines 12-14).

If you negate D, then gravitational force will not be necessary, hence making the author's claim redundant. In other words, D almost works like an assumption to support the author's claim.

[raziel]

I was thrown off by the strong language used in (D). However, shifting its language a little bit makes it a much better answer than the other 4 answers.

From the passage we know that using the theory of gravity scientists find that a lot of the mass in the universe is missing. So by using only gravity, they came to the conclusion that there is a lot of mass missing. Scientists investigate the claim, and behold! more mass is found.

However, the language of both (B) and (D) are used to detract from content of what they are really saying. That is why I got it wrong and that's why a lot of people get it wrong (I presume).

(B) Seems to be making a reasonable claim, but then we realize it is actually talking about gravity . Scientists have identified the force but not the mass!

(D) Would seem much more attractive if it said gravity is a very good explanation for the organizational structure of the universe. However, the claim in the argument is that mass is missing. It is not saying that other forces are present. The new evidence it provides is one instance of a particle for which evidence had not been obtained regarding its mass. (There should be more mass==> more mass is found). We can reasonably infer that more mass will be found in a similar manner.

This is the second time in a row that I get these type of questions wrong (The author hold's which one of the following view/Most likely agree with). It seems that the 4 answer choices go against something explicitly stated in the passage, and some just don't seem to be supported by anything stated in the passage. The correct answer seems to be somewhat supported by evidence presented in the passage, although not by the standards we would feel certain about.

The moral of the story for these questions? First look to see what answer choices are clearly wrong, or go against something presented in the passage. When you are left with 2 answer choices, look to see what is supported, even mildly, in the passage. If you feel the evidence is not enough to prove the claim, at least look for SOME support. Know that in these questions the answer choice might go beyond what the evidence proves. Ask yourself, is this a good/reasonable inductive claim from the evidence provided? Is there any evidence to show that the author disagrees with the statement? Are the other answer choices clearly wrong?

I hate these questions

[T.J.]

Note that the author proceeds within the framework delineated by the theory of gravitation. It is brought up in the first paragraph that this theory implies a missing mass of at least 90%.
However, the author doesn't reject gravitation but supply new evidence in accordance with the idea of force. Therefore, it is supported that the author doesn't think any other force than gravitation account for the organization of universe.

[ohthatpatrick]

(D) is definitely a weird type of correct answer. The previous poster explained it very eloquently by saying that "˜the support’ for (D) is really just the tacit assumption of the entire passage:
gravitational theory is a given ... but it predicts a ton of mass that we’re currently missing.

The author/passage is only concerned with how to find that missing mass to balance out the predictions of gravitational theory. At no point does anyone speculate that maybe gravitational theory itself is really the problem and needs to be changed. (Although I had that feeling as a reader)

(A) is contradicted ... observable matter constitutes around 10% (lines 9-10)
(B) is unsupported ... current theories are incapable of finding the missing mass (according to this passage)
(C) is basically contradicted ... even if we knew that the mass of a neutrino was "˜exactly’ its highest possible value, it would still only explain another 20% of the missing mass.
(E) is contradicted ... for reasons just mentioned in (C)

So the flow of this question was basically that (A), (C), and (E) are contradicted by the passage, leaving us to consider (B) and (D).

The fundamental (no pun intended) difference between those two answers is
"Does the author DOUBT that gravity is capable of being the force that causes all particles to attract or does the author ACCEPT that gravity is capable of being the force that causes all particles to attract?"

There really isn’t explicit textual support for the author’s opinion on the matter (no pun intended), so we have to go with the implicit endorsement of gravitational theory since the whole passage is written in a tone that is compliant with the theory and its predictions.

[renata.gomez]

The way I see D is that if there was another force besides gravity that accounts for the organization of the universe, then the author would be considering other factors besides the mass of dark matter. the author would have to mention in the conclusion if there was any other doubt, even something along the lines, "If gravity is the only force, then neutrinos helps solve the dark matter problem and helps account for the discrepancy" .

[VendelaG465]

im still confused as to how D is correct. it opens up with "it is unlikely that any force other than gravitation will be required to account..." but the whole passage is discussing neutrinos as "another force" that is necessary to shape the galaxies, it seems to be contradicting the passage the way i see it?? B was my original choice, please help clear this up