LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Only physiology can determine how an organism works in terms of how organs play a role in a body’s functioning.
REASONING: The author gives an analogy to machines. There, physics and chemistry can’t express the notion of the purpose of a machine, while engineering can. In an organism, physics and chemistry can’t express operational principles.
ANALYSIS: “The notion of purpose” was essential in the machine analogy. So in the case of the organism, the author must assume that there is something analogous to “purpose” which physics and chemistry also can’t express.
___________
- This is tempting, but this doesn’t matter. All that matters is whether the body has something analogous to “purpose”.
- This isn’t necessary. If physics and chemistry don’t do this then the argument that they can’t analyze an organism is even stronger.
- CORRECT. Purpose was the only factor mentioned which explained why physics and chemistry couldn’t analyze machines. If organisms don’t have a similar notion then it isn’t clear why physics and chemistry are insufficient.
Negation: Organisms don’t have anything analogous to the notion of purpose in machines. - This doesn’t matter. Independence doesn’t determine whether a science can do something or not.
- This should have mentioned physics, not mechanical processes. And, this isn’t necessary.
Negation: Biological processes are reducible to chemical processes, but organisms still have a notion of purpose which chemistry can’t analyze.
Are the operational principles in question here engineering and physiology?
No. The operation principles refer to the principles that govern ho a system functions as a whole (e.g. how a machine’s parts interact to achieve its purpose, or how organs contribute to a body’s health). The analogy compares fields of study that are capable of those principles (engineering and physiology), while physics and chemistry can only describe the material conditions but not the purposive, functional aspect.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
No. The operation principles refer to the principles that govern how a system functions as a whole (e.g. how a machine’s parts interact to achieve its purpose, or how organs contribute to a body’s health). The analogy compares fields of study that are capable of those principles (engineering and physiology), while physics and chemistry can only describe the material conditions but not the purposive, functional aspect.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.
Can you explain more why the sentence after “Similarly…” is the conclusion? I thought this was an analogy to strengthen the conclusion about physics?
In the first one, the first part of the analogy goes:
1. Physics and chemistry can’t analyze a machine
2. Only engineering can
#2 is the conclusion. #1 is merely a fact that helps show #2 is true. The word “only” helps indicate this, though that’s not conclusive.
It’s a little tricky with analogies, as they really work as a whole. But, similarly is the indicator, so the thing after it is likely the conclusion. In analogies you use one situation to prove another, so the first thing they mention in the other situation is the conclusion.
In any case, the stem asks for an assumption necessary for the analogy, so I suppose that gives us an out against having to precisely identify the conclusion.
Can you please breakdown your negation of answer E– this really confuses me!
Thanks so much!!
The key with negations is you want to try negating while still keeping the argument correct, if you can. On the wrong answers you can always negate in a way that leaves the argument intact, but on the right answer you won’t be able to.
So, the simple negation of E is to go from irreducible to reducible. But this doesn’t strictly address the notion of purpose, so I just added in as clarification that purpose still exists as something outside their analysis which chemistry and physics can’t analyze.
E is better. If you say there is no analogue, then the whole analogy breaks down and maybe physics and chemistry can entirely analyze organisms.
I’ll admit this is tricky. To some extent it is risky to try adding a clarification onto a negation, as it is possible to do so incorrectly on the correct answer. So to some extent you can only safely qualify the negation if you already understand what the negation should be. It’s still a helpful concept though: negating while trying to keep the argument correct.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.