LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 19

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:13

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT105 S4 Q19	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 17% 161 B 3% 162 C 2% 165 D 73% 167 E 5% 162	139 152 166	+Medium	144.839 +SubsectionEasier

A successful chess-playing computer would prove either that a machine can think or that chess does not involve thinking. In either case the conception of human intelligence would surely change.

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.

the conception of intelligence is inextricably linked to that of thought

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.

a truly successful chess program may never be invented

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.

computer programs have been successfully applied to games other than chess

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.

a successful chess-playing computer would not model a human approach to 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.

the inability to play chess has more to do with lack of opportunity than with lack of 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.

LSAT 105 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 105 - Section 4 - Question 19

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel