PT105.S4.Q19 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that a successful chess-playing computer would change how we see human intelligence, because it would either prove that a machine can think or that chess doesn’t require thinking.

The author uses premises about computers playing chess to support a conclusion about humans playing chess. He mistakenly assumes that what is true of a computer’s chess-playing method is also true of a human’s chess-playing method. But what if, for example, a computer doesn’t require thinking to play chess, but a human does? In that case, our understanding of human intelligence might not be affected by a successful chess-playing computer.

The author doesn't overlook the possibility that an understanding of intelligence is linked to an understanding of thought. Instead, he assumes that the two are linked.

This may be true, but it doesn’t affect the author’s argument, so it can’t be the flaw. The author never claims that a successful chess-playing computer will be invented. He just says that if one is invented, it will change our understanding of human intelligence.

This may be true, but it doesn’t affect the author’s argument, so it can’t be the flaw. His argument only addresses chess-playing computers; it doesn’t matter if computers can play any other kinds of games.

By applying premises about a computer’s approach to chess to a conclusion about a human’s approach to chess, the author assumes that the two are relevantly similar. But if the two approaches are different, a chess-playing computer may not affect how we see human intelligence.

The author’s argument addresses what would happen if a computer were able to play chess. He never discusses an inability to play chess.

PrepTest 105 - Section 4 - Question 19

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action