LR Question 21 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Only engineering is capable of analyzing the…
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
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.
Check out LSATHacks All Access
It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
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.