PrepTest 102

[lcid:3504] Prep Test 102 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the author's argument against the theory of internal relations, consult notes, and choose the answer choice that ties the author's evidence to the conclusion the author reaches.

Answer Anticipation

First, what even is this question? The phrase "following principle" in the question stem might ring a bell if you've been working on Principle questions in Logical Reasoning. This phrase shows up in Following Principle questions in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. In these questions, we have to pick the answer choice with the principle — or rule — that connects the author's evidence to the conclusion the author reaches. This question adds another wrinkle — it tells us to focus specifically on the author's argument against the theory of internal relations. So, we'll have to find the relevant part of the passage first.According to our notes, the author takes aim at the theory of internal relations in the third and fourth paragraphs. In the third paragraph, the author claims that not all properties of a part are defining characteristics (P3, S1), which undermines the theory's belief that each relationship between parts confers upon the parts a defining characteristic. In the fourth paragraph, the author points out that theory renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible (P4, S1). So, the correct answer will likely connect one of these criticisms to the conclusion that the theory is flawed. The correct answer might say something like, "A theory is flawed if it makes an overgeneralization about its subject," or, "A theory is flawed if it makes the acquisition of knowledge impossible." Let's look for something like one of those in the answer choices.

Answer choices

  1. A
    An adequate theory of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed?

    No. Translating this to an if-then statement, we get, "If a theory does not define the entities of which the system is composed, then the theory is inadequate." But the author never criticizes the theory of internal relations because the theory didn't define the "entities of which the system is composed." So, it cannot be said that this answer choice expresses a principle upon which the author bases their argument.

  2. B
    An acceptable theory cannot Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) Does this answer choice connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed?

    Sure, more or less. Translating this to an if-then statement, we get, "If a theory has consequences that contradict its basic premises, then the theory is unacceptable." This matches our second anticipated principle: "A theory is flawed if it makes the acquisition of knowledge impossible." The purpose of the theory of internal relations is to learn about complex systems. But, if the theory makes such knowledge impossible, it's fair to say that the theory has "consequences that contradict its basic purpose." Therefore, this answer choice connects the author's criticism to the author's conclusion. We'd be justified in selecting (B) and wrapping up this passage.

  3. C
    An adequate method of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this answer choice connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed?

    No. Translating this to an if-then statement, we get, "If a theory does not reveal the actual complexity of the systems it studies, then the theory is inadequate." But the author doesn't criticize the theory of internal relations for failing to uncover the complexity of the systems it studies. In fact, one of the author's criticisms is, essentially, that the theory makes the systems seem so complex that they're impossible to study (P4, S1-S3). Since this doesn't connect one of the author's actual criticisms to the conclusion, we can cross off (C).

  4. D
    An acceptable theory must Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed?

    No. Translating this to an if-then statement, we get, "If a theory does not describe the laws and initial conditions of a complex system, then the theory is unacceptable." But the author doesn't criticize the theory of internal relations for not describing the laws and initial conditions of a complex system. The author says that the analytic does do this, but this question stem didn't ask us to find a principle that could justify the author's argument about that method. Since this answer choice doesn't connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed, we can cross off (D).

  5. E
    An acceptable method of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed?

    No. Translating this to an if-then statement, we get, "If a theory studies parts of a system in isolation from the system as a whole, then the theory is unacceptable." But the author didn't criticize the theory for studying parts of the system in isolation from the system as a whole. In fact, the theory of internal relations attempts to the opposite. So, (E) doesn't connect one of the author's criticisms of the theory to the conclusion that the theory is flawed, making it incorrect.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Help 3 replies

    Started by Batman

  • Explanation 2 replies

    Started by AllisonJ

View all discussions Start a discussion