Q21 - Only engineering is capable of analyzing

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Engineering (purpose):Physics/chemistry (function)::Physiology (purpose):Physics/chemistry (function)

Answer Anticipation:
Bringing out out the old SAT analogy symbols above!

Looking at the two sides of the analogy, the physics/chemistry portion is a direct analog. The argument also talks about purpose as it applies to the two fields, but there's a chance that this comes from an equivocation - treating the same term as meaning two different things. Since that side of the analogy (engineering vs. physiology) speaks to two different fields, I'd concentrate my analysis on that side. Since we're trying to say this analogy is good (we're looking for a necessary assumption, which will help the argument work), I need to know that purpose is similar in engineering and physiology.

Correct Answer:
(C)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Function is the physics/chemistry side, which doesn't seem to have much of a gap. Additionally, I need humans to be analogous to machines, which doesn't mean they have to be machine-like.

(B) Too strong/contradicted. P/C don't need to establish physiological requirements for this argument to work. Also, the argument states that P/C can't determine the overall operational principles, which might include material conditions.

(C) Bingo. This answer choice tells us that "purpose" as viewed by engineers has an analogous meaning in organisms. If the purpose has no analog in organisms (the negation of this answer), then it can't have an analogous meaning in physiology, which is the study of organisms.

(D) Contradicted, if anything. Both engineering and physiology seem to take the teachings of P/C and go beyond them to discuss purpose. They're not independent of; rather, they're all related and inform each other.

(E) Opposite, if anything. If we can't use physics/chemistry to describe biological processes, this entire analogy falls apart, since it relies on the role of P/C to be analogous in both engineering and physiology.

Takeaway/Pattern: When dealing with arguments that bring up analogies/comparisons, see which side of the analogy/comparison is farther apart, and concentrate on gaps on that side.

#officialexplanation

[magic.imango]

I'm still having a hard time eliminating (A). The argument is built on this analogy between machines and human organisms so why isn't (A) necessary for it to stick? If you negate (A) and the functioning of human organisms is not machine-like, wouldn't that destroy the argument by making it harder to compare how the human organism works to how a machine works? I'm very confused.

[JorieB701]

Yea, would it be possible for someone to come in and break this stimulus down, line for line, please? I just re-did this PT from months ago and I honestly only think I got it right this time because I remember how crazy this one was. I guess I see how the "similarly" suggests that there's an analogy occurring here but the language is so crazy it barely makes sense to me. Please Help!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll try, but I got this right purely from structure. I found it inscrutable to follow, but it was clear an analogy was being made, and I know how LSAT likes to write these "Complete the Analogy" setups, so I looked for something that fit that goal.

1st sentence:
We built a machine. Was it a successful machine?

Chem and physics can't answer that question. Only engineering can.
The machine relies on chemistry and physics to move around and do its thing, but chemistry and physics can't say whether a machine succeeded, because that word conveys a sense of purpose.

Chem and physics aren't connected to a sense of purpose. They're just trying to describe what is. Engineering, meanwhile, has a human will behind it, so it IS connected to purpose.

2nd sentence:
We have a body. What role is each organ playing in the body's healthful functioning?

Chem and physics can't answer that question. Only physiology can.

The body relies on chemistry and physics to move around and do its thing, but chemistry and physics aren't connected to a sense of purpose. They're just trying to describe what is.

LISTENER: Okaaaay, so are you saying that analyzing an organism in terms of its' organs role in healthy functioning, like analyzing the success of a machine, is connected to purpose?"

[DPCTE4325]

Could someone breakdown what exactly the last sentence means?

Physics and chemistry cannot ascertain by themselves any of these operational principles.

Does ascertain in this context mean "analyze" and does operational principles in this context mean "the organs' roles and how they operate in the body?"

[ohthatpatrick]

This whole argument is sort of like saying,
picture a painting ... "Was it a successful work of art?"

In order to answer that question, would it suffice to study the chemistry of the pigments used. Would it suffice to measure the density of paint at different points on the canvas. Would we be able to ascertain (obtain / figure out) an answer to whether the painting was successful by making every possible chemical and physical measurement of the painting?

No, because there's nothing in the language of chemistry or physics that relates to the idea of a "successful" painting. In order to judge success, we'd have to understand what the goal of the artist was.

To get us to laugh? To get us to swoon? To get us to think? etc.

In engineering, we can judge the success of a door we just built or a garlic peeler we just built:
"Does the door do a good job of opening and closing, while containing air flow?"
"Does the garlic peeler do a good job of getting us the garlic without wasting too much or creating too much hassle?"

These are operational principles. Principles of how these things are supposed to operate.

Does physiology have an operational principle? Is there a way a human body is supposed to operate?

We could do every physical and chemical study of a given body, and it wouldn't help us answer the question of what this body was supposed to do (wouldn't help us ascertain a body's operation principle).