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

The last statement very specifically states that living things on earth are just a mere subset of all the living things in the universe. The final answer should also be on the similar lines and only 'Option E' fits the role.


Thanks,
Anurag

I got this one wrong and reviewing it again, here's what I found
(E) what a mammal is by examining a zebra

What we consider something as a life form on Earth may NOT be the same life form on other planet.
Living thing on other planet :: Living things that we know

Living thing :: One species of living thing
Mammal :: Zebra (mammal we know BUT there are other mammals as well.)
Fish :: Piranha (fish we know BUT there are other fishes as well)
Machine :: Printing press (Machine we know BUT there are others)
Plant :: Elm trees (there are other plants as well)

Living thing on other planet :: Living things that we know (But there can be other types/forms of life on different planet)

Maybe I missed the point. I thought the key to completing the passage was found in the words "the only ones we know". i.e. Drawing conclusions about something even though we don't know everything.

It doesn't seem totally outrageous to explain mammals with zebras...zebras are ...mammals...

?

The reason why C is not correct is because we are not trying to compare two different life forms. As per the para, the author is just analyzing one subset of a life-form and calling it as the main definition of the life-forms. There could be many other subsets with different definitions for life form.
Similarly, in option D:
One can not comprehend what mammals are just by analyzing one mammal(zebra)

CEdward, Yeah zebras are mammals, but they are not the only mammals on the planet, are they? The initial stems is basically saying that you can't draw conclusions on "Living things" by simply studying the living things on earth as there maybe other living things on other planets. On similar lines, you can't conclude stuff abbout mammals by simply studying a type of mammal (zebra)

Also, we're not really looking for what is sensible or outrageous, but rather what is analogous to the question. Hope this helps!

Video solution from Quant Reasoning starts at 18:33
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

Hi avigutman - Just saw your youtube solution to the problem.

Just focussing on the conclusion specifically in blue for this problem

One word threw me off completely and that word is "THEREFORE". Reason :

While I agree the conclusion in the blue by itself is talking about an issue of representativeness. I did not believe the earlier problems discussed (automobiles / computer programs) specifically have anything to do with an issue of representativeness specifically.

Why do you think the word "THEREFORE" exists when the earlier problems discussed have nothing to do with an issue of representatives ?

jabhatta2 in this case, we're not looking at an argument; we're looking at a passage (note the language in the question stem).
You're right that typically, in an argument, the word "therefore" should build off of all the premises as it leads into the conclusion.
However, since this is a passage, the word "therefore" need only connect the preceding sentence.
Does that clear your doubt?

Yes - your saying -- the word "therefore" is just a connector to the previous sentence [We must be open to the possibility that there are living things on other planets] and not necessarily derived from the sentences before.

Reason - it's not really an argument but like a RC passage.

Thank you

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 _______.

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

P : what we know < what we have to define
(Both need to be in same category though)


(A) the laws of physics by using pure mathematics
-> physics and mathematics are not is the same category.

(B) what a fish is by listing its chemical components
-> Same as A

(C) what an animal is by examining a plant
-> Same as A

(D) what a machine is by examining a sketch of it
-> Same as A

(E) what a mammal is by examining a zebra
-> Correct, zebra is kind of mammal and the scope zebra < mammal which is analogous to our conclusion.

Dear Experts,

I narrowed down to (B) and (E) but I don't know why (B) is incorrect.
Here are the logic why I cannot cross (B) out :
According to this sentences :
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, the author provides mechanic and component of living things (organisms, replication, evolution). Thus, (B) does the same thing : fish and its components.
(B) what a fish is by listing its chemical components

Could you pls help elaborate why (B) is wrong

PS. I understand that choice (E) does match the last 3 sentences in the question.

The passage's conclusion is strictly focused on the analogy given at the end. Therefore, you only need the last two sentences, which explain the analogy completely.
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 _______.

What's the problem here?
The issue lie in trying to define a MORE GENERAL class of things from information about only a small fraction of those things.
We want the answer choice that has the same issue.

B:
Chemical components are not an example of a fish, so, this choice doesn't work like the other half of the analogy. Eliminate.

E:
Zebras, by themselves, are only a tiny fraction of all mammals. So, trying to define mammals in general from information only about zebras is going to be problematic in the same way as the other part of the analogy. This answer is correct.

Can you share links to questions like these (Analogous comparisons/relations)?

Thank you!

@GMATNinja @egmat
Could you please help me with this question.

After reading the forum discussion, I understand how it is E.
But I felt the reasoning in the question is more subjective and open to interpreatations. The premise said living beings do some processes, which automobiles also do, or evolve which computer programs also do. This reasoning is not enough to classify anything as living/non-living.

When I marked B, my reasoning was: merely looking at chemical components of a fish shouldn't be enough to call it a fish, other organisms or say mixtures could have same chemical components.

I found this strongly analogous to the premise.

To be honest, the specific generic reasoning didn't strike me and I was able to rule out E with ease.

Thanks for your time and efforts.

singhall

What you're missing is the part about the conclusion itself. The author isn't just saying "We can't say what a living being is from these traits." They are saying specifically that we can't generalize about life from the one example we know--life on Earth. So we want an analogy to making a broad statement about ALL instances of something from ONE set of instances of that thing. That's where E works and B fails. B might be an incomplete way of describing something, but it isn't making the same leap that the conclusion describes: from the cases we know to all cases.