Potential application to living things ·Complexity theory might help explain aspects of living things
Example: Cells involve both linearity and chaos.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
25.
The author calls reports that ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ███████
Question Type
Stated
Why does the author think the idea that we're close to a "theory of everything" is misleading? The answer is found in the first paragraph. The "theory of everything" can only explain interactions and characteristics of subatomic particles, but would not predict the behavior of those particles for a significant time into the future.
a
it is impossible, ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ ███████████ ██████
The author doesn't suggest that we can't identify the location of all particles. What we can't do is predict the behavior of all those particles for a significant time into the future.
b
such a theory █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████
The author doesn't suggest that a "theory of everything" can be successful in explaining the behavior of linear systems. In fact, the author states that the theory cannot predict the behavior of complicated systems. Note that "nonlinear" is not equivalent to "complicated." Complicated systems can be linear or chaotic. So the fact that the "theory of everything" cannot predict the behavior of complicated systems is something that applies to complicated systems that are linear, too.
c
not everything is ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████
The author's criticism of the "theory of everything" doesn't suggest that there are some systems that don't have subatomic particles. The critique is that the location and characteristics of subatomic particles don't capture the behavior of those particles.
d
such a theory █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████████ █████████
Supported by the first paragraph. The "theory of everything" can only explain interactions and characteristics of subatomic particles, but would not predict the behavior of those particles for a significant time into the future.
e
modern science is █████████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███████
The author's criticism of the "theory of everything" isn't based on what modern science tends to focus on. The critique is that the location and characteristics of subatomic particles don't capture the behavior of those particles.
Analysis
Stated
Problem-analysis
Science
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.