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.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions