Reading comp PrepTest 102 · Section 1 · Question 22

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background on the debate between the analytic method (analyze parts separately) and organicism (the whole determines the nature of interconnected parts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "analytic method": usual method scientists use to study complex systems, which involves breaking the systems down into components and studying the components separately (first sentence)
  • Organicists' views:
    • If you break a complex system down into its component parts, its complexity is lost (second sentence)
  • Definition of "organicism": the whole system determines the nature of its parts, and the parts of the whole are interdependent (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "scientists typically advocate" (first sentence); "perceived weaknesses" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • The assumption underlying organicism (theory of internal relations: parts affect other parts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "theory of internal relations": relations between parts are possible only within a whole, and each relationship between parts alters each part (first sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the theory of internal relations:
    • Every relationship a part ("entity") has with another causes these parts to take on a new defining characteristic ("property") (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's first problem with IR (not every characteristic defines the part's identity)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's list of problems with the theory of internal relations:
    • Problem 1: The theory of internal relations is flawed because not all of a part's characteristics define the part's identity; so, a part can enter a relationship and take on a non-defining characteristic and remain essentially unchanged (first and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "one problem" (first sentence); "not all properties" (first sentence); "their presence does not influence" (first sentence); "even if it is admitted" (last sentence); "it is possible" (last sentence) "not necessarily true" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's bigger problem with IR (we can't acquire knowledge about parts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's list of problems with the theory of internal relations (cont. from P3):
    • Problem 2: To acquire knowledge of a part, we have to know about all of its relationships with other parts, but that means we would need to have a full understanding of the whole before we could study any of the parts, which seems like it's an impossible requirement to satisfy (second and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "the ultimate difficulty" (first sentence); "renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible" (first sentence); "seems to be a prerequisite impossible to satisfy" (third sentence)

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Author's criticism of organicists (they didn't understand the analytic method)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Organicists didn't understand the analytic method (first sentence)
    • The analytic method first determines which laws apply to the whole system and the initial conditions of the system before studying parts (second sentence)
    • Organicists never said laws or initial conditions of complex systems can't be determined, so they didn't offer a good reason to reject the analytic method or adopt organicism (third and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "failure to fully comprehend" (first sentence); "overlooked" (second sentence); "failed to recognize" (third sentence); "never advanced any argument" (third sentence); "offered no valid reason" (last sentence)

Main Point: Organicism is flawed as an alternative to the analytic method because it's based on a problematic theory and a misunderstanding of the analytic method.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Analytic method introduced

P1, S3 - Organicism introduced

P2, S1 - Theory of internal relations introduced

P3, S1 - Author's first problem with the theory of internal relations

P4, S1 - Author's second problem with the theory of internal relations

P5, S2 - Organicists' misunderstanding of analytic method

Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* The author introduces two competing theories for how to analyze complex structures: the analytic method and organicism. Organicism arose from critics of the analytic method who claimed it oversimplified interdependent systems. Organicists introduced their own method which posited that the whole system determines the nature of its parts and the parts are interdependent. The author shows that the theory of internal relations, on which organicism was based, is faulty and that organicists misunderstood the analytic method in the first place. The author concludes that organicism is not a valid alternative to the analytic method.

In a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage, the main point is typically the author’s central criticism or a summary of their criticisms. The author made several criticisms of organicism that we summarized in our main point: "Organicism is flawed as an alternative to the analytic method because it's based on a problematic theory and a misunderstanding of the analytic method."

*As is the case for many passages that utilize a Critical Meta-Structure, we could easily hang other Meta-Structures from that family on this passage. We could call this a Correcting the Record passage since the view the author criticizes is partly based on a misunderstanding. We could also call this a Rebutting Critics passage since the proponents of organicism are called "critics." (That said, the author isn't entirely defending the analytic method in this passage.) You could even call this a Phenomenon/Explanation passage (phenomenon: how parts function in a complex system; explanation 1: analytic method; explanation 2: organicism). No matter which Meta-Structure we apply to this passage, we must remember that the author's primary concern is undermining organicism rather than championing the analytic method. One gets the idea that the author perhaps favors the analytic method, but that is definitely not the focus of this passage.

Despite the abstract nature of its topic, this passage is very well-organized. The author's viewpoint is not hidden or nuanced; it is the driving force behind the argument throughout the passage, so we can be sure of what the author thinks about organicism at each stage of the passage. Also, the topic sentences of each paragraph are great signposts in this passage that neatly summarize what each paragraph is about. This helps us trace how the argument unfolds.