PT79.S4.Q21 - only engineering is capable

piotr.borowskipiotr.borowski Alum Member
edited November 2016 in Logical Reasoning 64 karma
Please explain why C and not B is correct. Thanks

Comments

  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    edited November 2016 12637 karma
    Disclaimer: I have very little LSAT knowledge, this could be very wrong. But I was interested and took a look at the question to see if I could figure it out.

    Since this isn't up on 7Sage yet, I can't link to a video. (J.Y. is still working on them!) However, I think it's not B because of the last line of Q21: "Physics and chemistry cannot ascertain by themselves any of these operational principles."

    B says "physics and chemistry determine the material conditions required for good physiological functioning" and while that's correct (since it's paraphrased from the upper half of the question), it's not the main point of the question.

    Again, I could be 100% wrong on this, so I'm pinging people who can help (and who have taken this PT):
    @"Cant Get Right" @danielznelson
  • steve-10steve-10 Alum Member
    192 karma
    We're looking for an assumption required by the analogy. (B) has nothing to do with analogy. (C) includes the closely-related word "analog" in its explication of the relation between the two things being analogized.
  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27822 karma
    Well, this is a really weird question. Argument by analogy is an inherently flawed argument form, so this will not be a traditional necessary assumption question. Basically, answer choice C says that the two items in the analogy are--at least somewhat--analogous. This absolutely must be the case for any argument by analogy. If you take the negation of this, it's obviously devastating to the argument.

    The problem with answer choice B is that it's subtly missing the point of the analogy. What is our conclusion? Are we concerned with what physics and chemistry do, or are we concerned with what they can't do? The point of the argument is to say that engineering and physiology are analogous in that they alone can determine the holistic operations of their respective subjects. In engineering, we know the role of physics and chemistry, but what they do isn't the point. Rather, the point is what they don't do. So in physiology, we don't have to know what they actually do, just as long as we know what they don't do. Maybe they apply completely differently in physiology, but that would be okay, because our conclusion is concerned with what they don't do.

    @"Dillon A. Wright" said:
    I think it's not B because of the last line of Q21: "Physics and chemistry cannot ascertain by themselves any of these operational principles."

    Yep! I seriously bet you would crush the LSAT Dillon! You must have absorbed so much information by now.
  • Stevie CStevie C Alum Member
    edited November 2016 645 karma
    @"Cant Get Right" said:
    answer choice C says that the two items in the analogy are--at least somewhat--analogous. This absolutely must be the case for any argument by analogy. If you take the negation of this, it's obviously devastating to the argument.
    Bingo. argument is already pretty weak, but we have to work with the argument that they gave us.

    OP, if we don't assume C, then does the argument have any support left?
  • piotr.borowskipiotr.borowski Alum Member
    64 karma
    Thanks a lot everyone! Weird question, but I think I get it
Sign In or Register to comment.