Bunuel wrote:
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?
A. the laws of physics by using pure mathematics
B. what a fish is by listing its chemical components
C. what an animal is by examining a plant
D. what a machine is by examining a sketch of it
E. what a mammal is by examining a zebra
NEW question from GMAT® Official Guide 2019
(CR07810)
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