#21 - Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[15veries]

Hi

So I was not sure between A, B, and C...
Is A wrong because in the argument it does not specify "human" and B not good physiolofical functioning is equal to body's healthy functioning? I'm not sure, I thought those two are very similar though...
For C it seems it connects the two ideas in one of its premises.
So basically what is true i a machine also applies to organism---and the last sentence is kind of paraphrase of the 1st sentence?

[studytime]

Focusing on the question helped me with this one. There is no obvious argument, so I felt confused at first as to how to approach this necessary assumption question. It asks which assumption is required for the ANALOGY to work.

It is established that engineering analyzes the working of a whole machine, and physics/chemistry can look at some conditions necessary for how this machine functions, but they are not able to express how the whole works. This is then compared to how physiology looks at the whole of the human body and how it functions, whereas physics and chemistry can't express how the whole works. The analogy is then that engineering sees it subject matter differently than chemistry/physics; in a way similar to how physiology sees its subject matter differently than chemistry/physics.

Let's take an easier example of an analogy -- head : hat :: pan : lid. Just as you put your hat on top of your head to cover it, you can put a lid on top of a pan to cover it.

A) is wrong because you don't need to establish that the subject matter of physiology is similar to the subject matter of engineering for the analogy to work. Does your human head really have to have that much in common with a pan for the above analogy to work? The only thing that is necessary for an analogy is that the RELATIONSHIP between the two elements are similar, not that the entities themselves are.
B) surely helps the analogy work a little better, but it is not NECESSARY for the analogy to be applied. Only one similarity in the relationship needs to be there for an analogy to work, even though having two similarities is helpful. So, to use my analogy, you put your hat on your head, just as you put a lid on top of a pan. You also put your hat on your head to COVER IT, just as you put a lid on top of a pan to COVER it. This latter element is helpful, but it is not necessary for the analogy to work.
C) is the right answer because it establishes that the analogy itself is valid. To use the negation method: if there is no similarity between how the principle discovered by engineers relates to the entire functioning of the machine and how the principle discovered by physiologists relates to the entire functioning of an organism, then you can't apply the analogy.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Studytime,

Good job analyzing this stimulus. There is in fact an argument, even if it is not obvious. The claim the author is trying to substantiate is that the analogy itself is valid.

You are correct to correlate the parts of the facts in the premises to the similar concepts in the proposed analogy.

Engineering : analyzing nature of machine as a whole :: Physiology : analyzing nature of body as a whole

The remainder of the claim is that based on the claim that the fact that Physics and Chemistry cannot express the notion of purpose is sufficient to know that they cannot by themselves ascertain operational principles.

There is an implied equivalence here between "notion of purpose" and "operational principles."

This is the most salient gap in the reasoning, expressed as you noted in Answer Choice (C): "Notion of purpose in engineering has an analog in organisms"

This analog refers to "operational principles." This is indeed an assumption necessary for this argument to be valid.

[mN2mmvf]

I also read the analogy as

Engineering : analyzing nature of machine as a whole :: Physiology : analyzing nature of body as a whole

But I saw the gap in the other parts. I thought engineering was successful not just because it analyzed the machine as a whole, but also because there were material conditions present, and those conditions depended on physics and chemistry:

Nature of engineering --> understanding the successful whole --> required material conditions --> physics and chemistry determine conditions

So I expected that there'd be an equivalent chain. Physiology would be successful not just because it analyzed the nature of the body as a whole, but also because there were material conditions, and those conditions depend on physics and chemistry.

Principles of physiology --> understanding the successful whole --> (GAP) --> physics and chemistry determine conditions

In both cases, the role of physics and chemistry is necessary down the chain, but insufficient by themselves to analyze the nature/principles.

All of the above is how I assessed the stimulus. For the answer, I was looking to bridge the (GAP) by finding something that was required for understanding the successful whole of physiology and itself required physics and chemistry. So I chose (B), because it introduced material conditions necessary for successful physiology, conditions which themselves required physics and chemistry.

I understand the rationale for (C) using the negation technique...if there is analog in physiology to the notion of purpose in engineering, then the entire analogy would seem to break down. Is this question a trap for sufficient v. necessary assumptions? (B) is the answer if the question were a sufficient question, about filling a gap, and (C) is the answer for a necessary question, about defending against an unstated but necessary assumption?

[James Finch]

Hi MN,

I don't think we need to turn this into a conditional reasoning problem. Instead it works better to examine the analogy directly and then figure out what is being directly related. I'll start with physics and chemistry, as they're present in both:

Physics and chemistry can't express purpose::Physics and chemistry can't ascertain operational principles

Then we have:

Only engineering can analyze nature of machine::Only physiology can analyze nature of an organism

So (B) doesn't work not because of its role in conditionality, but because it isn't actually part of our analogy at all, while (C) is claiming that some operational principle(s) must be analogous to purpose, which we can see is the only part that doesn't fit perfectly within the analogy, and requires the leap from operational principles to purpose. Using the Assumption Negation technique makes the correctness of (C) obvious.

Hope this helps!

[BMM2021]

Hi,

I see how answer C bridges the gap between operational principles and notion of purpose, and in my prephrase I thought that something equating the notion of purpose to physiology is what would be needed. However, I sort of talked myself out of C because I believed the first part of the argument about engineering is saying, in essence, that only engineering can adequately describe the proper functioning of the whole, which itself provides the "notion of purpose" that the more granular focuses of physics and chemistry can't capture.

In turn, since physiology describes the proper functioning of the organism, I thought that was sufficient to say that physiology therein captures the notion of purpose for organisms, just as engineering does for machines.

So my question is: was it wrong to believe that the concept of "notion of purpose" is equated to "describ[ing] the successful working of the whole?"

If not, does that make answer C an assumption or simply a restating of premises?

[Adam Tyson]

I think it is a mistake to assume that those two things are the same, BMM. Perhaps the author made that assumption, but we should not.

My understanding of this argument is that the author thinks the reason why physics and chemistry cannot fully describe the working of a machine is because they cannot express purpose. This author believes that purpose is an essential part of the whole, and that is why engineering is required.

They use that reasoning to say the same thing is true about an organ's role in the body, that physics and chemistry can't describe the operational principles. But why not? Where is the premise that tells us why that's true in this case? In order for the analogy to hold up, the author must have assumed that organisms, like machines, have purpose. They didn't say that, so they must have assumed it.