Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in

Question

Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in terms of the successful working of the whole; physics and chemistry determine the material conditions necessary for this success, but cannot express the notion of purpose. Similarly, only physiology can analyze the nature of an organism in terms of organs' roles in the body's healthy functioning. Physics and chemistry cannot ascertain by themselves any of these operational principles.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the analogy?

(A) The functioning of the human organism is machine-like in nature.

(B) Physics and chemistry determine the material conditions required for good physiological functioning.

(C) The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the success of machinery has an analog in organisms.

(D) Physiology as a science is largely independent of physics and chemistry.

(E) Biological processes are irreducible to mechanical or chemical processes.

Yosemite98 · Accepted Answer

We’re given an analogy that compares  engineering vs. physics/chemistry  with  physiology vs. physics/chemistry . The key point is that  only engineering and physiology  can account for  purpose or function  in a system, whereas  physics and chemistry  only describe  material conditions , not  goal-directed behavior .
 
Core Argument:
 
 Engineering analyzes machines in terms of  successful functioning  or  purpose . 
 Physics and chemistry only describe the  material conditions  for success, not  purpose . 
 Physiology does the same for  organisms  — analyzes them in terms of how organs contribute to healthy functioning. 
 Physics and chemistry can't account for  purpose or operational principles  in organisms either.  
So the analogy draws a parallel:
 
And says:
 
Question: What is an  assumption  required for this analogy?
Let’s evaluate each choice.

(A)  The functioning of the human organism is machine-like in nature. 
This would help the analogy, but it’s  not required . The analogy doesn’t need the organism to  be  like a machine — it only needs that both  can be analyzed  in terms of purpose by physiology/engineering respectively. The comparison is  functional , not metaphysical.
 Not required .

(B)  Physics and chemistry determine the material conditions required for good physiological functioning. 
This is  stated  in the passage: physics and chemistry provide  material conditions , but not purpose. This is not an assumption; it's part of the  explicit content .
 Not an assumption  — it's part of the premise.

(C)  The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the success of machinery has an analog in organisms. 
This  bridges  the analogy — if you're comparing the idea of  purpose  in machines (engineering) and  purpose  in organisms (physiology), you're assuming that  "purpose" makes sense in both contexts .
If there were no analog of "purpose" in organisms (as there is in machines), the analogy falls apart.
 This is necessary  for the analogy to hold. This is the correct assumption.

(D)  Physiology as a science is largely independent of physics and chemistry. 
The passage says that physics and chemistry alone  cannot express purpose , but it doesn’t claim that physiology is  independent  of them. Physiology may well use physics and chemistry — it just goes  beyond  them.
 Too strong  — not required.

(E)  Biological processes are irreducible to mechanical or chemical processes. 
This is similar to D. The passage says  purpose  can’t be captured by physics/chemistry alone — but not that  all biological processes  are irreducible. That would be a stronger claim.
 Not required , and too broad.
 
Final Answer:
 (C) The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the success of machinery has an analog in organisms.

RC11mileage · Answer

Let me give my 2 cents.

There are 2 'right looking' answers : A vs C

A talks about 'functioning'
C talks about 'purpose'

The underlying theme of the para is 'purpose' and not functioning. Hence, C is the better choice.

guddo · Answer

Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in terms of the successful working of the whole; physics and chemistry determine the material conditions necessary for this success, but cannot express the notion of purpose. Similarly, only physiology can analyze the nature of an organism in terms of organs' roles in the body's healthy functioning. Physics and chemistry cannot ascertain by themselves any of these operational principles. 
 
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the analogy?

The argument draws an analogy between machines and organisms. For machines, engineering can talk about the  purposeful functioning of the whole , while physics and chemistry can describe only the material conditions. The argument then says the same kind of distinction holds for organisms: physiology can explain organs in terms of their roles in healthy functioning, while physics and chemistry alone cannot.  For that analogy to work, there must be a real parallel between engineering “purpose” and physiological “function.”

(A) The functioning of the human organism is machine-like in nature.

This is too strong. The analogy does not require organisms literally to be machine-like. It only requires a relevant similarity between the two cases.

(B) Physics and chemistry determine the material conditions required for good physiological functioning.

This is not required. The argument says physics and chemistry cannot by themselves ascertain the operational principles of organisms, but it does not need the stronger claim that they determine the material conditions for good functioning in the same way as in machines.

(C) The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge the success of machinery has an analog in organisms.

This is the required assumption. The analogy depends on there being  a comparable notion  in organisms to what engineering calls purpose in machines. Without that parallel, the move from machines to organisms does not hold.

(D) Physiology as a science is largely independent of physics and chemistry.

This is not required. Physiology may still depend heavily on physics and chemistry while also adding something they cannot provide by themselves.

(E) Biological processes are irreducible to mechanical or chemical processes.

This is too broad and strong. The argument only says physics and chemistry cannot by themselves express operational principles such as purpose or function. It does not require the sweeping claim that biological processes are wholly irreducible.

Answer: (C)

SkyBox · Answer

I want to point out that, contrary to what you said, (B) is not actually stated; what is stated is that  "physics and chemistry determine the material conditions necessary for this success,"  with  "this success"  referring to the success of the working of the whole  machine . However, (B) is not referring to a machine but rather  physiological  functioning. What makes (B) wrong is that it is not required that  every  single element in an analogy can be analogized; as long as the parts relevant to the conclusion can be analogized, then it is adequate.

Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in

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

Only engineering is capable of analyzing the nature of a machine in

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