PT38.S4.Q6 - in any field, experience is required

babybenny

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-38-section-4-question-06/

I know the conclusion is computerized "expert systems" cannot be~ and all of the other sentences are premises.
And I chose A as an answer, but the correct answer is B.
I really don't understand why A is wrong and B is the right answer.

Can anyone explain me please?

sicsemper

Sure! The argument goes something like:
C: Computerized expert systems CANNOT be as good as human experts.
P1: Experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert.
P2: Experience allows one to gradually develop repertory of model situations
P3: Computers can store a lot of data, but it is stored in the form of rules and facts as human knowledge is not.

The info we've been given should call attention to the use of "rules and facts". In order for the argument to hold - that computers CANNOT be as good as human experts - we have to assume something about the quality of that method of storage (or how appropriate it is to developing a "repertory of model situations..." relative to the human method). There is something about the human method (whatever exactly it is) that must be preferable to the computer method of storing with rules and facts. (This is all before looking at As). Looking at As:

A: I'd immediately eliminate. "Originality" is unhelpful here in that it is not clear what relationship that concept has to "the use of rules and facts" or the method of computer storage. (Or, at least, that relationship is arguable.)
B: I like this, because it fills the hole between the premise stating that info is stored in comps and humans differently and the conclusion that computers - by nature it seems - cannot be as good. If the way knowledge is stored gives humans the deciding advantage, and computers cannot be programmed to store info in this way (assumption), then the conclusion holds that computers cannot be as good as humans.
C: Supports a different conclusion.
I think this is the second most attractive answer, but according to the stimulus the critical matter is HOW the information is stored, not how much information can be stored.
E: The stimulus doesn't say anything about intuition.

Mr.Tinklebottom

This looks like an old post but I had the same issue where I chose A with B as a contender.
I understood the conclusion to be: "...for this reason computerized expert systems cannot be as good as human experts."
Now, I also took "this reason" to be referring to the statement, "through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation."
I think this is what trips up most people on this question because this statement about a repertory of model situations allowing an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation seems to be the crux of the conclusion. This was what led me to see answer A as making what I thought was a small assumption in originality=intuitive response.
I see now that we cant make that assumption.
However, if what I have above is indeed the crux of the conclusion (repertory.. that allows an immediate, intuitive response...), I still don't see how B can be the correct answer. I'm thinking even if B were true, it wouldnt hurt the argument because it still doesnt show it "allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation". Help!

Mr.Tinklebottom

Okay so thinking more on why B is correct if (referring to my precious post) the crux of the conclusion is referring to "...a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation.", the actual definition of intuition is direct perception of truth, fact, etc independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension so if we assume computers are capable of doing this in making "...an immediate intuitive response to a new situation.", then I can understand answer B being correct.
Is this reasoning correct?