A geologist recently claimed to have discovered in clay a previously unknown form of life: "nanobes," one-tenth the size of the smallest known bacteria. ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █ ████████████ ██████████ █ ████████████ ███ █████
I found this question tough to anticipate. Here's the distilled argument:
Nanobes are too small to contain a reproductive mechanism.
You need a reproductive mechanism to be alive.
--------
Nanobes probably aren't alive.
I read that and thought "damn – seems pretty airtight to me." I actually anticipated that the assumption would come between "nanobes aren't alive" and the much more specific "nanobes are artifacts of clay." Like maybe they're anything other than that.
But no, the gap lies in the link assumption between "containing a reproductive mechanism" and "having access to a reproductive mechanism." As (B) suggests, perhaps there's a way organisms can reproduce without each one containing the entire mechanism.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
No known form ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ █████████████
There's a sense in which (A) gestures in the wrong direction by placing another limiter on what kinds of things can reproduce. Placing more restrictions on reproduction strengthens the argument rather than weakening it.
But really, the requirements for sexual reproduction are irrelevant to our discussion, which is just about whether nanobes can reproduce by any means.
Single-celled creatures can ███████ ██ ████ █ ███████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████
Here's an analogy:
Stimulus: Power Rangers can't save the world because none of them are big or powerful enough.
(B): Well, the Planeteers are small too, but they combine their rings to make a super-big-and-powerful Captain Planet. Maybe the Power Rangers do something like that.
The idea isn't that nanobes are single-celled creatures, and it's also not that they're for sure akin to single-celled creatures in their ability to combine. The idea is that it's possible for something to be alive even though it's too small to contain a reproductive mechanism.
Some single-celled organisms make a reproductive mechanism by combining – maybe nanobes do something like that.
The material phenomena ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████
This is wrong for mental state v. reality reasons. If (C) gave us "this meteorite stuff is the same size as nanobes and counts as life for sure," it'd be a slam dunk. But instead of the fact that this meteorite phenomenon is life, (C) gives us a belief that some scientists have.
Our author would simply reply "I obviously think those scientists are mistaken."
Previous definitions of ████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████
Previous outdated definitions notwithstanding, we're working with this current definition of life, which is presented to us as a premise (and therefore not subject to doubt as we critique the reasoning).
Animals such as ████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████████ ████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████
The problem isn't with nanobes' complexity – it's with their size. And it's not even with their size relative to other organisms – it's with their size relative to the reproductive mechanism.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.