Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT102 S1 P4 Q26 Explanation

Organicist vs. Analytic

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

TopicsPrincipleScience

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Principle

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
26.

Which one of the following is a principle upon which the author bases an argument against the theory

Answer choices

  1. Bad Trigger Match23% picked this

    An adequate theory of complex systems must define the entities of which the

    If we contrapose this, then it will fittingly have a right side that sounds like the author's assessment that internal relations is an inadequate theory: theory doesn't define the not an adequate entities of which the ⇢ theory of system is composed complex systems But that trigger doesn't match anything. The author never complained that the theory of internal relations doesn't define the entities of which a system is composed.

  2. Correct45% picked this

    An acceptable theory cannot have consequences that contradict its

    Why this is right

    If we contrapose this, then it will fittingly have a right side that sounds like the author's assessment that internal relations is an unacceptable theory: theory has consequences not an that contradict the → acceptable basic purpose of the theory theory Do the consequences of internal relations contradict its basic purpose? What is the purpose of organicism and the theory of internal relations? It's to better understand a complex system. Since the author says in the 4th paragraph that one consequence of the theory of internal relations is that it renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible, it looks like internal relations has a consequence that contradicts its basic purpose. It's a theory of how to go about gaining knowledge that makes the acquisition of knowledge impossible. Thus, it's unacceptable.

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

  3. Bad Trigger Match9% picked this

    An adequate method of study of complex systems should reveal the actual complexity of the

    If we contrapose this, then it will fittingly have a right side that sounds like the author's assessment that internal relations is an inadequate theory: theory doesn't reveal the not an adequate actual complexity of → method of studying the systems it studies complex systems But that trigger doesn't match anything. The author never complained that the theory of internal relations doesn't reveal the actual complexity of the system it studies. It just said, "Not all properties of an entity are defining characteristics" and "this theory makes the acquisition of knowledge seem impossible".

  4. Bad Trigger Match13% picked this

    An acceptable theory must describe the laws and initial conditions of

    If we contrapose this, we get: theory doesn't describe the not an the laws and initial conditions → acceptable of complex systems theory But that trigger doesn't match anything. The author never complained that the theory of internal relations doesn't describe the laws and initial conditions of complex systems. It just said, "Not all properties of an entity are defining characteristics" and "this theory makes the acquisition of knowledge seem impossible".

  5. Bad Trigger Match10% picked this

    An acceptable method of studying complex systems should not study parts of the system in isolation from the

    If we contrapose this, we get: theory studies parts of the not an system in isolation from the → acceptable system as a whole method But that trigger doesn't match internal relations. That matches the analytic method. This answer would be a principle that makes the analytic method seem like an unacceptable method.

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