Q26

[norginz]

Can you explain this question? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Per the discussion the passage, the author criticizes internal relations mainly because --

1) Per paragraph 3, sometimes not relevant to study the whole
2) Per paragraph 4, it's impossible to use system to gain knowledge
3) Per paragraph 5, it overlooks characteristics of the analytical method

The answer choice can address any of these areas, so we have to read them with an open mind:

(A) The author could agree with this, but this isn't directly related to the three criticisms laid out.
(B) This is a little difficult to understand, and a little tempting. Let's keep it.
(C) Is not directly related to any of the criticisms.
(D) Wouldn't be a principle that could support any of the criticisms.
(E) wouldn't be a criticism of internal relations.

Though (B) is a very well hidden answer, strong elimination skills can get you there. Let's discuss (B) more carefully --

What (B) means in basic wording is "A theory can't have a result that goes against what it was intended for."

What is the goal of the Internal relations? To gain understanding. Per paragraph 4, what are we told we can't do w/Internal relations? Gain understanding (in fact, it's impossible). The author is saying IR isn't worth it, because it prevents us from achieving the goal.

Again, tough passage and questions. Please don't hesitate to follow up if any of this wasn't clear.

[skapur777]

Is D incorrect because he isn't saying that ALL acceptable theories must describe the laws and initial conditions of a complex system? Just the analytic method?

I picked this one because he criticizes organicists for not advancing any argument to show that the laws and initial conditions cannot be discovered, showing that there is no valid reason for rejecting the analytic method or adopting organicism as a replacement.

But is the answer choice overstepping its' bounds a little bit, and that is why it is wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Yeah, I think you got it -- (D) is grammatically structured to mean something that is different from what we need in our answer.

Let's say the passage concerned two theories as to why we watch television -- it is relaxing and entertaining --

The equivalent of (D) would be: "All theories about life has to be about why we watch television."

We're talking about theories that describe laws of complex situations -- to do this, we don't need to show that any acceptable theory (about anything in the world) must describe complex systems.

[nflamel69]

Personally I love this question, it really test your close reading. I have a somewhat different view than what Mike had in mind. I think the key point to this question is to differentiate organicism and theory of internal relations. Author actually only had 2 criticism for the theory itself. The last paragraph is author's criticism against organicism. So basically you had to keep in mind there are only 2 possible answers: 1. the theory may exaggerate certain qualities importance. 2. the theory itself had an impossible assumption. therefore, the theory itself is contradicted. and B matches the 2nd criticism really well.

Any geeks has any input for this?

[tommywallach]

Hey Nflamel,

I'm not sure I totally understand your point here, but I'll try to respond.

You wrote: "Author actually only had 2 criticism for the theory itself. The last paragraph is author's criticism against organicism."

Organicism is the theory here (it is interchangeable with the theory of internal relations, as per the first sentence of the second paragraph), so Mike was correct in citing three separate complaints.

The next thing you said was "1. the theory may exaggerate certain qualities' importance." I think this is your take on the first of the author's complaints. I think you definitely get it, though the word "exaggerate" makes me slightly nervous, only because it isn't so much as an exaggeration as a fundamental misunderstanding that all of an entity's characteristics do not necessarily define an entity.

Then you said "2. the theory had an impossible assumption." I know you're gonna kill me, but it's not technically an assumption, but a consequence. If one needs to understand every relational aspect of an entity, one would need to understand every relational aspect of every entity that had a relationship with the primary entity, and on and on ad infinitum. No one could gather that much information, so the theory itself is impossible.

This is what makes the question hard (And good, as you said!). We're jumping from "impossible" consequences to "consequences that contradict its basic purpose." I think this is a pretty weird leap, to be honest, but it's the best we got!

Now, all that being said, I actually think you're totally on top of this in terms of understanding, but there might be some word choices in the explanations that aren't perfect. But that's what we geeks are here for!

-t

[mchelle]

Thank you for the great explanation! This may seem obvious, but I was wondering what distinguishes an assumption from a consequence? Is the assumption an implicit premise of the argument, whereas a consequence is the result of applying the argument in practice?

So in this passage, the author is not directly attacking the assumptions of the internal relations theory, but showing that in practice the theory leads to impossible consequences... Had the author solely attacked the assumptions of the internal relations theory, would he have said something similar to, the whole cannot determine the nature of the parts?

[jewels0602]

Are we to assume that its basic purpose is to gain a basic understanding (which in turn is something we can't do)... or is this explicitly stated somewhere in the passage?

I just can't seem to get to the specificities based on the very abstract language for the correct answer choice.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, we do need to plug in some conservative assumptions.

What is the purpose of any science?

It's to try to figure out how the world works. Figuring out how the world works is acquiring knowledge.

You can somewhat tell from the 1st P that organicists were troubled by the analytic method because when you use that to study a complex system, "its complexity tends to be lost".

We would only care about that if our basic purpose was to accurately capture reality ... to KNOW how the system really works.

So it doesn't actually say anywhere in the passage that the basic purpose of internal relations is to acquire knowledge, but it would be weird to think otherwise - to think that a scientific theory did NOT have acquiring knowledge as its basic purpose.

Naturally, this invokes the time-honored lament of LSAT being inconsistent: "How am I supposed to know when I can/can't use outside knowledge?!"

Definitions of words (and their synonyms) don't count as 'outside knowledge'.

If you look up the meaning of 'science' on dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t

4 of the top 5 definitions all involve "knowledge".

So I see why you were frustrated looking for textual evidence of 'basic purpose', but they intended that part of the answer to come from definitional knowledge about science.