Self-study
Support A successful chess-playing computer would prove either that a machine can think or that chess does not involve thinking. ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████████ █████ ██████ ███████
Summarize Argument
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.
Identify and Describe Flaw
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.
19.
The reasoning above is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████
a
the conception of ████████████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████
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.
b
a truly successful █████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████████
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.
c
computer programs have ████ ████████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ████ █████
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.
d
a successful chess-playing ████████ █████ ███ █████ █ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████
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.
e
the inability to ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████████████
The author’s argument addresses what would happen if a computer were able to play chess. He never discusses an inability to play chess.