Reading Comprehension

PT111 · S2 · P3 · Q16 Biology and Universal Laws

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

Philosophers of science have long been uneasy with biology, preferring instead to focus on physics.

Topic

Whether biology consists of universal laws (like physics) or whether historical contingency is integral to it.

Framework

Present Debate. The author lays out the longstanding preference for physics, traces how some biologists tried to imitate physics, and presents a recent challenge — that biology may need to make room for historical contingency.

Main Point

Philosophers of science have favored physics because it deals in universal laws and avoids the merely particular; some biologists have tried to make biology look like physics, but recent biologists question whether biology is reducible to universal laws — historical contingency may be integral.

P1: Why philosophers prefer physics

Philosophers of science distrust uncertainty and want repeatable, universal phenomena, not historically contingent ones. They're fascinated by elephants and mice falling at the same rate (universal law) but uninterested in how elephants and mice came to be different sizes (historical particulars).

P2: Some biologists tried to be like physicists

Some evolutionary biologists also tried to construct biology as a set of universal laws — invoking a universal "struggle for existence" or claiming DNA evolves at a constant rate. Recently, however, some biologists have questioned this and raised the possibility that historical contingency is integral to biology.

P3: A test contrast — "all planets move in ellipses"

"All planets move in ellipses" is genuinely universal: it applies even to merely possible planets, because the shape of orbits follows necessarily from the laws of gravity.

16.

The reference to the formulation of the notion of a universal "struggle for existence" (third sentence of the second paragraph) serves primarily to

  1. identify one of the driving

    Unrelated to Goal

    The author isn't saying that a "struggle for existence" is a legit idea. She is saying that it is an example of biologists trying to turn biology into something more like physics. Our author is somewhat skeptical that biology actually lends itself to such mechanistic rules and formulas.

    27% picked this

  2. illustrate one context in which

    Opposite

    This is an example of evolutionary biologists trying to certainty to their field. They want certain, universal laws, and "struggle for existence" is an example of their attempt to manufacture such things within their field.

    9% picked this

  3. highlight the chief cause of

    Too Strong: chief Unrelated to Goal

    This has loaded language, "The #1 cause of controversy", and also sounds nothing like what we're looking for, which is that the author brought up struggle for existence to highlight an example of evolutionary biologists trying to act like physicists.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    provide an example of the

    Why this is right

    We were looking for something like, "highlight an example of evolutionary biologists trying to act like physicists". The evolutionary biologists who are trying to act like physicists are the determinist ones. Determinism is the idea that the universe functions like a big machine or computer program. Their are universal laws governing cause and effect and all actions and reactions we observe are just the methodical workings-out of those laws. Language like indeterminism / historical contingency / particular / accidental refers to the opposite -- a world that's sloppy. Chance and free will play a role. You can't totally predict everything or reduce everything to rules. The 2nd paragraph discusses two different camps of evolutionary biologists. The first group hates the particular, loves the universal. They want universal laws. The second group doesn't believe in "the necessary (deterministic) unfolding of universal laws". They think historical contingency (random accidents) play a crucial role. In the 3rd paragraph, we hint at names for these two groups by saying "one group favors universal, deterministic laws / the other group likes historical contingency". And then in the 4th paragraph, we finally start referring to them as determinist and nondeterminist biologists.

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

    48% picked this

  5. provide an example of a

    Opposite

    The universal "struggle for existence" is an example of a biological concept that would involve determinism, not historical contingency.

    11% 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