PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 21
Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe functioning of(7 more words not shown)
- BPhysics and chemistry(9 more words not shown)
- CThe notion of(15 more words not shown)
- DPhysiology as a(8 more words not shown)
- EBiological processes are(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Are engineering and physiology alike in the way that matters here? The passage moves from analyzing a machine as a working whole to analyzing how an organism's organs contribute to its healthy functioning. That comparison needs a connection; putting the two fields next to each other doesn't supply one.
What we’re looking for
The machine discussion draws a distinction between describing material conditions and explaining purpose—what the parts do for the whole. The organism discussion then asks us to accept a similar distinction. For the required assumption, we need something that lets that comparison work. We don't need the two subjects to be identical in every respect.
Working the answers
- A
The comparison concerns how we analyze the parts' roles in a whole. It doesn't require the human organism itself to function like a machine. Two things can call for similar kinds of analysis without operating in the same physical way. A shifts from the similarity of the analyses to a claim about the things being analyzed.
- B
This would extend a detail from the machine discussion: physics and chemistry could describe the material conditions for an organism's good functioning too. But it doesn't supply the essential counterpart to purpose, which is the basis of the comparison. The argument can distinguish an organ's role in healthy functioning from a description of its materials without requiring this particular claim about which sciences establish all those conditions.
- CCorrect
The argument uses the machine's purpose to explain why engineering offers something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. To apply that reasoning to organisms, there must be a corresponding idea on the organism side: what organs do for the body's healthy functioning. If nothing about organisms corresponded to purpose in the machine analysis, the central comparison would fail.
- D
Needing physiology to analyze these roles doesn't make physiology largely independent of physics and chemistry. A field could rely heavily on those sciences while also addressing a question they don't answer by themselves. The passage needs that additional kind of analysis, not broad independence.
- E
The argument distinguishes explaining a part's purpose from describing material processes. It doesn't need to claim that biological processes cannot be reduced to mechanical or chemical ones. A process could have a chemical description while a different account explains the role it serves in the organism.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.