Biologists with a predilection for theory have tried—and largely faile

Must be (E), we can not define something by defining it in terms of its Original Species/constitent.

Question Type: Complete the Argument/Similar Reasoning

Analysis: The argument is trying to explain that just by observing life on earth is not sufficient to recognize or judge a different life form from another part of the universe. The class of organisms we call as living may not be sufficiently big enough to recognize a different life form.

The argument is short says that life on earth is a Sub set of all life in the universe & hence we cannot judge based purely on observations of elements with one subset.
The correct answer has to provide an analogy of observation within a single set of elements with in a Subset.


A. the laws of physics by using pure mathematics - Incorrect. Not analogous as they both form different Sets

B. what a fish is by listing its chemical components. Incorrect. Same as A

C. what an animal is by examining a plant. Incorrect. Same as A

D. what a machine is by examining a sketch of it. Incorrect same as A.

E. what a mammal is by examining a zebra. Correct. As per analysis.

Answer E.

Thanks,
GyM

IMO E.

If we analyse only the way we know living beings to be, then we will be missing out on the living beings on other planets who might be very different from the ones known.

A. the laws of physics by using pure mathematics
- incorrect.

B. what a fish is by listing its chemical components - incorrect.

C. what an animal is by examining a plant
- incorrect.

D. what a machine is by examining a sketch of it - incorrect.

E. what a mammal is by examining a zebra- correct. Resembles the logic of concluding about a particular thing by examining only one variant of it.

Thus, E is best.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The analogy here is trying to define X is having seen just one variant of X. That's same as trying to define what a mammal is having seen just one variant of it i.e. zebra. So (E) is the correct choice

Biologists with a predilection for theory have tried—and largely failed—to define what it is that makes something a living thing. Organisms take in energy-providing materials and excrete waste products, but so do automobiles. Living things replicate and take part in evolution, but so do some computer programs. We must be open to the possibility that there are living things on other planets. Therefore, we will not be successful in defining what it is that makes something a living thing merely by examining living things on Earth—the only ones we know. Trying to do so is analogous to trying to specify _______.

Boil it down - We can't define an entire set based on the characteristics of a single element.

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

A. the laws of physics by using pure mathematics -- Incorrect -- physics and pure mathematics are different branches of science

B. what a fish is by listing its chemical components -- Incorrect

C. what an animal is by examining a plant -- Incorrect

D. what a machine is by examining a sketch of it -- Incorrect

E. what a mammal is by examining a zebra -- Correct -- here Zebra can be analogous to living organisms on earth and mammal is all living organisms

VeritasKarishma nightblade354 generis GMATNinja

Is my below understanding of argument correct:



Conclusion: defining x (how living things work) by narrowing our scope on our studies on things on earth shall not be successful.
This is similar* to


Correct: Mammal is bigger set resembling earth
Zebra: smaller sub-set of mammals resembling living thing in the argument.

None of other answer options match above reasoning.

* generis , I almost recalled learning figures of speech such as as simile and metaphor in my school days
in an attempt to understand analogy. To recall x is similar to y is a simile and x = y is a metaphor, right ?

Your line of thinking is correct.

Hi adkikani,

E. what a mammal is by examining a zebra -- here a mammal is analogous to all living things and zebra is analogous to living things on Earth.

Hope this helps!

I narrowed down to (b) and (e) but chose (b) as I thought we were comparing the mechanics of something to that thing itself.

I can see now that the logic is analogous to defining a broader group based on a smaller sub-set of the group.

Why is D incorrect? So the gist of question is to answer a question by just looking at part of the picture. Its consistent with the reasoning that one cannot tell what a machine does, just by looking at its picture. Can someone explain. Although, i agree that reasoning in E is little more consistent with the question.

Biologists with a predilection for theory have tried—and largely failed—to define what it is that makes something a living thing. Organisms take in energy-providing materials and excrete waste products, but so do automobiles. Living things replicate and take part in evolution, but so do some computer programs. We must be open to the possibility that there are living things on other planets. Therefore, we will not be successful in defining what it is that makes something a living thing merely by examining living things on Earth—the only ones we know. Trying to do so is analogous to trying to specify _______.

Hey everyone! I am quite interested by this question. This is an excellent question to learn the techniques of GMAT.

First: The first part of the paragraphe tells us that by examine a being with current criteria we can not define if it’s a living being precisely. This is contradictory to the answer E. Because we need to add more advanced criteria or input to get the right result in an scientific point of view.

This is the biggest logical défaut of this question. But it is actually a distraction.

Let’s see the second part of the question. We must be open to the possibility of extraterrestrial beings. This could be telling us that life can not be defined by narrowed criteria. We need to broad it. Quite confusing right?

Now let’s use the sentence correction technique to solve this question:
the only ones we know. Trying to do so ......
Trying to do so: “so” is to say “trying to define living things by examine the only criteria we know”. Then E makes sense.

Well, I guess I’m not good at GMAT. But this question really got me confused.
Good luck guys.

VeritasKarishma
" Organisms take in energy-providing materials and excrete waste products, but so do automobiles. Living things replicate and take part in evolution, but so do some computer programs."
what is the purpose of providing these two lines?

" We must be open to the possibility that there are living things on other planets. Therefore, we will not be successful in defining what it is that makes something a living thing merely by examining living things on Earth—the only ones we know. Trying to do so is analogous to trying to specify _______."
Aren't the two lines sufficient to conclude "from a small group we cannot make decisions on the entire group " ?

Yes, and that is why the answer is (E).
Check here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/biologists-w ... l#p2166597

The passage encourages us to be cautious about drawing a broad conclusion from limited evidence, for a particular category (category of living things)

The broad conclusion: what makes something a living thing (classifying the definition of 'living' that can be used for all matter)
The limited evidence: using only 'what we know' exists. (using organisms that we know are living as evidence)

the correct answer must have a similar comparison involving one particular category.

(A) the laws of physics by using pure mathematics - though common in some applications, physics and mathematics are two separate fields of study. besides, the laws of physics are intrinsic in nature and many use some concepts of mathematics as supporting premises. (A) does not involve drawing a broad conclusion for a particular category using limited evidence. Hence, eliminate (A).

(B) what a fish is by listing its chemical components - (B) does not follow the "living organism-->broad conclusion regarding living organism'' structure; Instead, what we have here is the usage of biological properties of a living organism to describe that organism itself. Hence, eliminate (B).

(C) what an animal is by examining a plant - By examining a plant, we may get to know more information about other plants. What we know of plants cannot be used as evidence to make conclusions about a whole different category of living matter (animals in this case). Hence, eliminate (C).

(D) what a machine is by examining a sketch of it - A sketch of a machine is simply a representation of that machine itself. (D) does not draw any broad conclusion regarding the general category of 'all machines'. hence, eliminate (D).

(E) what a mammal is by examining a zebra - Here, we are trying to establish a conclusion for a broad category (all mammals) by citing one particular mammal (the zebra) as evidence. In other words, a sub category (the zebra) is being used as evidence to establish a statement regarding the general category (the mammals). this is similar to what is happening in the passage. Hence, (E) is the right answer choice.

Why can't C be correct?

(C) what an animal is by examining a plant

This is same as defining one form of life by examining other form of life.
We don't know how the life could be in other plants. ( example: in Titan, there is liquid which is not water but liquid methane. there are lakes. and who knows what kind of life it may have ( may not breath oxygen but could breath methane who knows?. Even in our stories, fiction, Aliens are not represented like humans on earth)
So by understanding the components of life i can derive one known life to another unknown life on other planets.

please suggest with this thought in mind how could i still choose E as the right answer. IN E i am assuming too simple which may or may not be valid in true sense.

VeritasKarishma dcummins nightblade354 Skywalker18