Reading comp PrepTest 102 · Section 1 · Question 24

Passage

Questions 22-26  .        Scientists typically advocate the analytic method of  . studying complex systems: systems are divided into  . Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Key Lines?

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

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

The passage offers information Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to eliminate the incorrect answer choices.

Answer Anticipation

For these Bizarro Must Be True questions, the correct answer will either present a topic not discussed by the passage or assert a claim contradicted by information in the passage. For the former, we'll generally use a process of elimination to get rid of each answer that does show up in the passage. For the latter — we're in luck — as we can find a line citation to prove that the passage contradicts the correct answer. In that case, we can feel a lot more comfortable about picking it — while also likely getting it correct faster. But we won't know if this is the case for the correct answer until after we analyze it, so we should expect to use a process of elimination.As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, it's probably supported by the passage. We can eliminate it without checking the passage. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, it's probably the correct answer. We can use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be false. If we can find that confirmation, we'll select that answer choice and move on. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn't reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we should mark that answer choice as the possible correct answer. Once we've eliminated the remaining answer choices, we can select it.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Why does the theory Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the passage's main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes. Our note for the fourth paragraph is, "Author's bigger problem with IR (we can't acquire knowledge about parts)." That strongly suggests that the passage provides the information that answers the question in (A). Rather than wasting time checking the passage, we can safely eliminate (A) and advance to the next answer choice.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (A), we'd find support in the fourth paragraph. There, the author explains that under the theory of internal relations, to acquire knowledge of a part, we must know about all its relationships with all the other parts that compose the whole (P4, S2). But that means we would need to have a full understanding of the whole before we could study any of the parts, which is an impossible requirement to satisfy (P4, S2-S3). So, the passage answers the question posed by (A).

  2. B
    Why did the organicists Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the passage's main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes. Our note for the first paragraph is, "Background on the debate between the analytic method (analyze parts separately) and organicism (the whole determines the nature of interconnected parts)." The word "debate" strongly suggests that the passage provides the information that answers the question posed by (B). Rather than wasting time checking the passage, we can eliminate (B) and advance to the next answer choice.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (B), we'd find support in the first paragraph. There, the author states that the organicists believed breaking a system into its component parts would underestimate its complexity (P1, S2). This is why they came up with organicism, which relies on interdependence. So, the passage answers the question posed by (B).

  3. C
    What is the difference Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the passage's main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes. Our note for the third paragraph is, "Author's first problem with IR (not every characteristic defines the part's identity)." This suggests that this paragraph distinguishes "defining" and "accompanying" characteristics. Rather than wasting time checking the passage, we can eliminate (C) and advance to the next answer choice.

    If we had to check the passage to eliminate (C), we'd find support in the third paragraph. There, the author explains that a defining characteristic determines an entity's identity while an accompanying characteristic may always be there but doesn't influence an entity's identity (P3, S1). So, the passage answers the question posed by (C).

  4. D
    What did organicists claim Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the passage's main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes. Our note for the second paragraph is, "The assumption underlying organicism (theory of internal relations: parts affect other parts)." This note answers the question (D) poses, so we can confidently eliminate (D) and advance to the next answer choice.

    But if we had to check the passage to eliminate (D), we'd find the answer in the second paragraph. There, the author says that the organicists believe that if an entity enters into a relationship with another entity, the entities acquire new defining characteristics (P3, S1-S4). So, the passage answers the question posed by (D).

  5. E
    What are some of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Is this consistent with the passage's main point or reflected in our notes?

    It's not inconsistent with our main point or notes, but none of our notes allude to the "advantages" of separating out the parts of a system for study. Since our notes suggest that (A) through (D) are supported, we can be confident that (E) is not supported. We can select it by process of elimination.

    However, if you wanted to check the passage, the supporting information would have to be in the first paragraph (where the author provides background information on this type of study) or the last paragraph (where the author defends the practice). We could re-read both paragraphs, and we wouldn't find any reference to the advantages of this type of study.

    Because the passage does not supply information to help answer this question, this is the right answer choice.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 10%
  2. B 8%
  3. C 16%
  4. D 12%
  5. E Credited 54%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion