LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 25

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:56

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
PT137 S3 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Analogy +An
A
1%
154
B
2%
156
C
88%
165
D
7%
160
E
2%
155
136
146
155
 +Medium 146.416 +SubsectionMedium

Graham: The defeat of the world’s chess champion by a computer shows that any type of human intellectual activity governed by fixed principles can be mastered by machines and thus that a truly intelligent machine will inevitably be devised.

Adelaide: But you are overlooking the fact that the computer in the case you cite was simply an extension of the people who programmed it. It was their successful distillation of the principles of chess that enabled them to defeat a chess champion using a computer.

Speaker 1 Summary
Graham claims that it’s inevitable that humans will invent a truly intelligent machine. How do we know? Because the world chess champion was recently beaten by a computer. According to Graham, this means that computers can master any kind of principle-based intellectual activity (which Graham assumes means that machine intelligence is coming).

Speaker 2 Summary
Adelaide comes to the implied conclusion that the chess example doesn’t actually mean that AI is imminent. This is because the computer’s chess skill was just an extension of its programmers, who were able to accurately program the rules of chess. Thus, it doesn’t follow that computers can necessarily master all other sorts of activities.

Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Graham and Adelaide disagree on whether this chess victory shows the computer’s ability to learn intellectual activities.

A
chess is the best example of a human intellectual activity that is governed by fixed principles
Neither speaker makes this claim. Graham uses chess as one example of a human intellectual activity that is governed by fixed principles, but neither speaker says whether it’s the best example.
B
chess is a typical example of the sorts of intellectual activities in which human beings characteristically engage
Neither speaker claims this. Neither Graham nor Adelaide discusses what kinds of intellectual activities are most characteristic or typical for humans to engage in.
C
a computer’s defeat of a human chess player is an accomplishment that should be attributed to the computer
Graham agrees with this but Adelaide disagrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Graham infers that computers can master certain human activities, meaning he thinks that this computer mastered chess. Adelaide claims that it’s the programmers’ achievement, not the computer’s.
D
intelligence can be demonstrated by the performance of an activity in accord with fixed principles
Graham may agree with this, but Adelaide never offers an opinion. Adelaide doesn’t weigh in on the issue of machine intelligence at all, instead focusing on whether the computer or the programmers should get credit for this chess victory.
E
tools can be designed to aid in any human activity that is governed by fixed principles
Neither speaker makes this claim. Adelaide’s argument implies that the computer was used as a chess-playing tool by its programmers, but she never generalizes that model to all principle-based activities. Graham doesn’t discuss tools at all.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply