Reading Comprehension

PT102 · S1 · P4 · Q24 Organicist vs. Analytic

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Scientists typically advocate the analytic method of studying complex systems: systems are divided into component parts that are investigated separately.

Topic

The debate between the analytic method and organicism in studying complex systems.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The author challenges the organicists' rejection of the analytic method, arguing that organicists misunderstood how the analytic method actually works and failed to provide valid reasons for abandoning it. ( — final sentence)

P1: Introduction to Analytic Method and Organicist Critique

Scientists usually break down complex systems to study their parts individually (analytic method), but 19th-century critics (organicists) argued this loses essential complexity. They introduced organicism, which sees parts as interdependent and defined by the whole.

P2: Theory of Internal Relations

Organicism relies on the theory of internal relations: entities are fundamentally defined by their relationships within a whole, and these relationships alter the very nature of the entities involved.

P3: Issues with Internal Relations

Problem: Not every property an entity has counts as a defining characteristic; entities can have relationships that don't actually change their core identity.

24.

The passage offers information to help answer each of the following questions EXCEPT:

  1. Why does the theory of

    Answered

    If we search for "impossible", we'll find it only in the 4th paragraph. The first sentence of the 4th states that the theory of internal relations appears to render the acquisition of knowledge impossible, and then the rest of that paragraph explains why. - knowing anything requires knowing what wholes it is a part of, and knowing all the relationships within each of those wholes, which seems like an impossibly tough prerequisite to satisfy.

    3% picked this

  2. Why did the organicists propose

    Answered

    The final paragraph provides the organicists' mistaken rationale for replacing the analytic method. The author says that they offered no valid reason for rejecting the analytic method, but they did have an invalid reason! They failed to fully comprehend the analytic method. They overlooked that before analytic scientists study the component parts of a system, they first determined the laws and initial condition applicable to the whole system. In short, the organicists knew that it was very important to appreciate how a system works as a whole, and they mistakenly thought that the analytic method didn't address that understanding. So that's why they proposed replacing it. The first paragraph also supplies a similar answer: the critics, who would eventually go on to put forward the organicism concept thought that the analytic method tended to lose the complexity of a system by isolating its parts.

    5% picked this

  3. What is the difference between

    Answered

    The 3rd paragraph addresses defining vs. accompanying. A "defining" characteristic is really defined towards the end of the 2nd paragraph. The idea is if entity X has property A, and without property A, entity X would be another entity, then property A is a defining characteristic. An "accompanying" characteristic is defined in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. If entity X has property A, but property A's presence doesn't influence the entity's identity, then it's an accompanying characteristic.

    13% picked this

  4. What did organicists claim are

    Answered

    In the 2nd paragraph it says, If an entity stands in a relationship with another entity, it has some property as a consequence. The property is one of the entity's defining characteristics.

    7% picked this

  5. Correct

    What are some of the

    Why this is right

    The passage doesn't provide any answers to why separating out the parts of a system for study could be good. We can probably answer that with our own common sense. "It's good to separate out the parts because ... - it's too hard to work on all of them at once - you might only be able to fit one of them under a microscope at a given time - you might be overwhelmed by the complexity of studying all parts at once and give up - you might be able to divide up the work (Sally studies part A while David studies part B, and later they meet up and share notes). But none of these reasons are stated anywhere in the passage. The one possible answer from the passage we might think of using would be, "the advantage of separating out the parts is that it makes the acquisition of knowledge possible". But the impossible-knowledge part of the passage is connected to the theory of internal relations. It's not inherently part of studying the whole vs. studying the parts in isolation.

    Skill tested: Five Questions · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    71% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free