Self-study
Support Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in terms of the successful working of the whole; Support physics and chemistry determine the material conditions necessary for this success, but cannot express the notion of purpose. ██████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████████
Summary
The author concludes that only physiology (and not physics/chemistry) can analyze the nature of an organism in terms of organs’ roles in the body’s healthy functioning.
Why? The author supports the conclusion with an analogy to machines. Physics/chemistry can’t express the notion of the purpose of a machine. Only engineering can do that, which is why only engineering can analyze the nature of a machine in terms of its whole.
In the case of an organism, physics/chemistry can’t discover any of the operational principles involved in how organs help a body’s healthy functioning. (Only physiology can do that, which is why only physiology can analyze an organism in terms of organs’ roles in healthy functioning.)
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the analogy regarding machines is relevantly similar to the case of analyzing an organism. In particular, the author assumes that inability to analyze the notion of purpose is similar to inability to analyze the operational principles of organs’ roles in healthy functioning. Just as a machine has an intended purpose, the author believes that an organism has something similar.
21.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████
a
The functioning of ███ █████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ███████
Not necessary, because the argument just requires that the relationship between certain concepts in the machine analogy is similar to the relationship between certain concepts in the case of an organism. Specifically, the assumption is that the relationship between a machine’s purpose and the nature of machine is similar to the relationship between the operational principles of organs and the nature of an organism. But this doesn’t require that a human organism “function” like a machine. For example, the way we run, jump, speak, or think, doesn’t have to be similar to how a machine would move or make sounds or generate ideas.
b
Physics and chemistry █████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████████████ ████████████
Not necessary, because the core of the author’s reasoning involves what physics and chemistry are unable to do. They can’t analyze the operational principles of a body’s healthy functioning, just as they can’t determine the material conditions that make a machine successful. The argument doesn’t depend on what physics/chemistry CAN do; the focus is on their limits.
c
The notion of ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if the notion of purpose as it relates to machinery does NOT have an analog in organisms — then the machine analogy provides no support to a conclusion about analyzing organisms. The author pointed out that physics/chemistry couldn’t analyze the purpose of a machine as a reason that those disciplines couldn’t analyze what makes a machine successful. But if “purpose” doesn’t have a similar concept in organisms, then we have no reason to think physics/chemistry couldn’t explain organs’ roles in a healthy body.
d
Physiology as a ███████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
Not necessary, because even if physiology has some overlap with physics/chemistry, it can still be a different discipline that can analyze things physics/chemistry cannot.
e
Biological processes are ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████
Not necessary, because even if biological processes can be reduced to mechanical or chemical processes, the author’s point is that there’s something else that we need to take into account in order to analyze the nature of an organism — we need to take into account operational principles. As long as these operational principles cannot be entirely explained by physics/chemistry, the author’s reasoning still works.