Only engineering is capable

Answer choices

1. A

   Weakens, if anything15% picked this

   The functioning of the human organism is machine-like

   This was not one of the parallels that the author was assuming in this analogy. If the human organism were machine-like, then presumably it wouldn't be only physiology that could analyze it; engineering would also be able to.

   15%
2. B

   Not Necessary18% picked this

   Physics and chemistry determine the material conditions required for good

   This one's hard. It feels like, "Sure, why not? This would be another parallel between both sides of the analogy". But the author's analogy is all about what Physics and Chemistry can't do. It doesn't really care about what they can do. If we negated this answer choice (P&C do not determine the conditions required), then it would make Physics and Chemistry even less useful when it comes to physiology. That doesn't really hurt the author's analogy at all. She's trying to say that only engineering/physiology can do X, because physics and chemistry can't do something necessary for X. The statement about what physics and chemistry can do in the world of machines is a concession, not a premise.

   18%
3. C

   Correct53% picked this

   The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the success of machinery has an

   Why this is right

   This is a strange answer because by saying "has an analog" it's like they're just telling us in the answer choice how this answer is supposed to work. Usually, if they're supplying the missing piece in an analogy, they wouldn't say, "We're completing the analogy" out loud. Is the notion of purpose something that needs to be present in both sides of the analogy? Yes, because purpose is the required thing that physics and chemistry have no language to deal with. In the case of a machine, what is it's purpose is something only the maker could tell you. "It's a trampoline. It's supposed to allow you to jump up and down in roughly the same spot, and to allow you to jump higher than you could off the ground using elastic response." Physics and chemistry could tell us what types of materials springs or stretchable rubber we would need, and the angle and tightness of elastic response that would send a jumper roughly straight up, but it couldn't tell you whether the trampoline works successfully as a whole, because that would take the engineer saying, "Yup! It's letting people bounce up and down as I intended." When we move over to physiology, who's the engineer saying, "Yes, the human body is working as I intended?" To someone who believes that natural selection intended the body to reproduce sexually, the human body would be functioning correctly if it replicated via childbirth. To someone who believes that a supernatural being intended the human body to spread love and compassion would say the body is functioning correctly if the person is spreading love and compassion. We don't have a consensus view on what a "successfully working human being" is, so how does the author think we have an analogous Physiologist who can evaluate whether the body is "operating according to the principles of its design". In the context of this conversation, several ideas are being used interchangeably: Successful working of the whole achieving its purpose operational principles (how it should operate)

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   53%
4. D

   Out of Scope: largely independent8% picked this

   Physiology as a science is largely independent of physics

   It doesn't change anything whether it's largely independent or only somewhat independent. As long as Physiology is at least somewhat distinct from Physics and Chemistry, then it could have a special ingredient (in this case, the language of "purpose") that would allow it to have a unique ability to judge certain things.

   8%
5. E

   Too Broad: biological processes7% picked this

   Biological processes are irreducible to mechanical or

   The author thinks that "judgment of an organism's proper functioning" is irreducible to mechanics (Physics) and chemistry. But she doesn't need say that no biological process can be reduced to a mechanical or chemical process. I'm guessing she would say the biological process of cell division, for example, can be reduced to mechanical/chemical processes.

   7%