- Wed Jul 16, 2025 11:00 am
#113607
Hi jackie,
Answer A states, "An adequate theory of complex systems must define the entities of which the system is composed." For this to be the correct answer, the author of the passage would have to agree with this statement and then use this statement to attack the theory of internal relations. However, the author does not agree with this statement. The fact that it would be impossible to define all of the entities is exactly why an adequate theory does not need to define all of the entities.
As Rachael mentions in her post (Post #3), the principle described in Answer A is actually what the organicists believe, not what the author believes.
In solving this principle question, first start by finding what the author's exact criticism of the theory of internal relations was. The author's main problem with the theory of internal relations is stated at the beginning of paragraph four. "The ultimate difficulty with the theory of internal relations is that it renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible" (lines 34-36). The second step is to then describe this problem in a broader way in order to get at the principle underlying the specific details being discussed. Why does it matter that the theory renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible? It matters because that defeats the entire purpose of creating a theory, which is meant to increase knowledge/understanding about the world. In other words, a theory that can't increase knowledge is useless, pointless, impractical, not helpful, counterproductive, etc.. Answer B gets at this idea.