Biologists with a predilection for theory have triedand largely faile

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 _______.

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)

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

(CR07810)

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

The author discusses some salient features of "living things" and then goes on to show how some non living things exhibit the same features. 
Then he goes on to say that there must be living things on other planets.

Conclusion: We cannot define what living things are by examining just the Earth's living beings. Living beings at other planets may be different.

If we do, it will be analogous to ...

What the author is doing in the previous sentence is saying that we cannot define a generic concept such as "living things" by taking very specific example of "life on Earth". Life may have different form on other planets.

This is same as defining what a mammal (generic) is by examining a zebra (specific).

None of the other options talk about defining generic concepts using specific examples.

Answer (E)

Gladiator59 · Answer

The analogy that we are looking for from the question stem should be closest to " explaining the whole based on a part of it" as the author says living organisms cannot be fully explained by just looking at those on earth as there may be more "living things" on other planets.

The closest to above is option (E).

Explaining what a mammal is by only looking at a zebra ( a subset of mammals) is trying to explain the whole by looking at a part.

Hence (E).

Posted from my mobile device

GyMrAT · Answer

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

preetamsaha · Answer

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 " ?

KarishmaB · Answer

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

avigutman · Answer

Video solution from Quant Reasoning starts at 18:33 Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkQK0U8B6A

jabhatta2 · Answer

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 ?

avigutman · Answer

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?

Tanchat · Answer

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.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

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.

singhall · Answer

@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.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Biologists with a predilection for theory have triedand largely faile

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Biologists with a predilection for theory have triedand largely faile

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards