Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT102 S1 P4 Q25 Explanation

Organicist vs. Analytic

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

TopicsNon-Author OpinionScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Scientists typically advocate the analytic method of studying complex systems: systems are divided into component parts that are investigated separately. But nineteenth-century critics of this method claimed that when a system’s parts are isolated its complexity tends to be lost. To address the perceived weaknesses of the analytic method these critics put of its parts and that the parts of a whole are interdependent.

Organicism depended upon the theory of internal relations, which states that relations between entities are possible only within some whole that embraces them, and that entities are altered by the relationships into which they enter. If an entity stands in a relationship with another entity, it has some property as a consequence. characteristics. Each of an entity’s relationships likewise determines a defining characteristic of the entity.

One problem with the theory of internal relations is that not all properties of an entity are defining characteristics: numerous properties are accompanying characteristics—even if they are always present, their presence does not influence the entity’s identity. Thus, even if it is admitted that every relationship into which an entity enters determines possible for the entity to enter into a relationship yet remain essentially unchanged.

The ultimate difficulty with the theory of internal relations is that it renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible. To truly know an entity, we must know all of its relationships; but because the entity is related to everything in each whole of which it is a part, these wholes known. This seems to be a prerequisite impossible to satisfy.

Organicists’ criticism of the analytic method arose from their failure to fully comprehend the method. In rejecting the analytic method, organicists overlooked the fact that before the proponents of the method analyzed the component parts of a system, they first determined both the laws applicable to the whole system and the initial valid reason for rejecting the analytic method or for adopting organicism as a replacement for it.

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
25.

The passage most strongly supports the ascription of which one of the following views to scientists who use

Answer choices

  1. Contradicted19% picked this

    A complex system is best understood by studying its component parts in full isolation from the

    We were told in that last paragraph that "proponents of the [analytic] method thus did not study parts of a system in full isolation from the system as a whole."

  2. Correct68% picked this

    The parts of a system should be studied with an awareness of the laws and initial conditions

    Why this is right

    This matches pretty well with our prediction: "It's important to understand laws and initial conditions of a whole system before you go analyzing its component parts". All we have to go off of when it comes to the analytic method is "before they analyzed the component parts, they first determined both the laws applicable to the whole system and the initial conditions of the system". This answer doesn't stray too far from our available Support Window.

    Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Contradicted6% picked this

    It is not possible to determine the laws governing a system until the system’s parts are

    The one sentence we have to go off of contradicts this: "before they analyzed the component parts, they first determined both the laws applicable to the whole system and the initial conditions of the system". The analytic proponents began by determining the laws governing a system, and then separated parts from one another.

  4. Wrong Point of View5% picked this

    Because the parts of a system are interdependent, they cannot be studied separately without destroying

    This is the organicists' point of view. We know that the analytic method was all about studying parts separately.

  5. Too Strong2% picked this

    Studying the parts of a system individually eliminates the need to determine which characteristics of the

    Too Strong: eliminates the need Out of Support Window All we have to go off of when it comes to the analytic method is "before they analyzed the component parts, they first determined both the laws applicable to the whole system and the initial conditions of the system". Does anything in there say that "studying parts individually eliminates the need to determine defining characteristics?" Not at all.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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