Summary
One way to compare chess-playing programs is to compare how they perform a fixed time limit per move. This comparison is done by using any two computers that can run the program and giving each computer a set time limit to make a move. The faster computer will have a better chance of winning because the program can examine more moves within the same span of time and pick the best possible move.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If two computers are running the same chess-playing software, the computer that can analyze the most available moves within a given time limit is most likely to win.
A
If one chess-playing program can examine more possible moves than a different chess-playing program run on the same computer under the same time constraints per move, the former program will have a better chance of winning than the latter.
This sounds similar but presents a very different situation. This talks about two *different* programs running on the *same* computer. If there were two different programs, there would be many more confounding variables to make a comparison.
B
How fast a given computer is has no effect on which chess-playing computer programs can run on that computer.
The stimulus says that the speed of a computer dictates how many moves the computer can assess, but nothing says its speed has no bearing on what program it can run. For example, you probably couldn’t run a fancy program on a potato computer.
C
In general, the more moves a given chess-playing program is able to examine under given time constraints per move, the better the chances that program will win.
This captures exactly what the stimulus details. The faster computer can examine more moves and is thus better positioned to make better moves and win.
D
If two different chess-playing programs are running on two different computers under the same time constraints per move, the program running on the faster computer will be able to examine more possible moves in the time allotted.
This is a very different scenario than the stimulus. This answer choice has two different computers and two different programs. You can only reach the same conclusion under the same conditions presented in the stimulus.
E
If a chess-playing program is run on two different computers and is allotted more time to examine possible moves when running on the slow computer than when running on the fast computer, it will have an equal chance of winning on either computer.
There is no information on what would happen if a slower computer was given more time compared to a faster computer. You have to assume that the processing speed of the slower computer is exactly equal to the time difference given to the faster computer.
Summarize Argument
The politician argues that it would harm democracy if a government were to monitor conversations. Why? Because for a democracy to work, people need to be able to freely share their ideas without worrying the government might take action against them. Unmonitored private conversations are essential to democracy.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the second sentence, which in turn supports the conclusion. Why is the right to private, unmonitored conversations essential to democracy? Because democracy requires free expression of ideas.
A
It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support only the argument’s main conclusion.
There’s certainly no support provided for the referenced text, but it doesn’t support the main conclusion. Instead, it supports a sub-conclusion, which in turn supports the main conclusion.
B
It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support a claim that is itself used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
The referenced text is definitely unsupported, which makes it a premise. It supports the second sentence, which in turn supports the main conclusion about democracy being harmed when the government monitors conversations.
C
It is a claim for which support is provided, and which is in turn used to support the argument’s main conclusion.
There’s no support for this claim. Nor does it support the main conclusion. Instead, it’s support for a sub-conclusion.
D
It is the argument’s main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, one of which is used to support the other.
The argument’s main conclusion is the last sentence. The referenced text certainly isn’t inferred from the sub-conclusion and main conclusion.
E
It is the argument’s main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, neither of which is used to support the other.
The referenced text isn’t the main conclusion. It also isn’t inferred from anything. It’s support for the second sentence, which is a sub-conclusion.