#20 - Interviewer: A certain company released a model of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is an unusual stimulus because it contains four statements between the interviewer and the
industry spokesperson. Most Logical Reasoning questions with multiple speakers are limited to two
or possibly three statements. The interviewer first asks how computers could be released with flawed
microprocessors. According to the spokesperson, the mistake occurred because it is impossible to
manually check every circuit on a microprocessor before releasing the computer. The interviewer then
asks how similar flaws will be prevented in the future and the spokesperson answers that such design
flaws cannot occur again since the microprocessors are designed entirely by computer.

It seems somewhat ironic, if not foolish, that the industry would rely upon computers – some of which
have recently been found to process information incorrectly – to prevent other computers from being
flawed. That is, if a computer with a flawed microprocessor happens to be constructed to design other
microprocessors it seems that any newly-designed microprocessors would likely be flawed as well.
Further, to correctly conclude that there is “no chance” of future design flaws is virtually impossible and
extremely vulnerable to attack, as could be expected of any conclusion that is limited to such an extreme
degree.

Answer choice (A): Actually, the industry spokesperson makes no distinction whatsoever between
the company mentioned and the rest of the industry. The spokesperson’s comments imply that no
companies can manually check all circuits and that all companies currently use computers to design
microprocessors. Based on the stimulus, one must conclude that the quality control processes are
representative of those followed throughout the industry.

Answer choice (B): The interviewer asks what guarantee there is that new microprocessors will not
be similarly flawed. Since “similarly flawed” clearly refers to the types of flaws just mentioned, this
question must be about preventing microprocessor design flaws. Therefore, the industry spokesperson
is not required to account for the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design
flaw. Although the statement in answer choice (B) is certainly not a valid criticism of the spokesperson’s
argument, this is nonetheless the most frequently chosen incorrect answer choice.

Answer choice (C): Since the industry spokesperson’s argument is in response to a question about
microprocessor flaws, there is no need for this argument to address the possibility of other computer
malfunctions.

Answer choice (D): The industry spokesperson does not commit the common logical fallacy of
overgeneralization. Instead, the spokesperson explains a single instance of a microprocessor design flaw
and offers evidence that there will be no such flaws in the future.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus contains evidence that some
computers are liable to error and the industry spokesperson then takes for granted that certain computers
will not make mistakes in microprocessor design.

[desmail]

Hi,

I completely understand why (E) is the correct answer. However, I just had a small question--why does the answer say "despite evidence to the contrary?" The stimulus doesn't really provide evidence to the contrary, so why is this phrase there?

I just kind of ignored it and figured the answer gets at the main flaw.

Thank you so much!
Dana

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for the question--this is another good one. The spokesman presumes that some computers are immune to error, despite the earlier discussion of the fact that computer errors have already occurred, and the reason provided was that modern computer microprocessors have so many parts that they cannot be checked manually; flaws have already occurred, and it appears that no modern computer is immune.

Let me know whether that's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[desmail]

So the computers are still liable to error because the spokesperson says "given the huge number of circuits in the microprocessor of ANY modern computer?"

So whether or not the microprocessors are computer designed, they will still be liable to error because not every circuit can be manually checked?

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response; you've got it exactly--the spokesperson's explanation of the cause of the problem is in specific response to the question "How did this (the flaw presented) happen"? So, we've been provided evidence that there is always some chance of error, yet the spokesperson seems to ignore this fact.

[desmail]

Thank you Steve!

[eober]

Hi,

Does "some computers" mentioned in answer choice E refer to "all microprocessors" referred to in the stimulus?

Thanks!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, eober,

Almost. "Some computers" mentioned in answer choice E refers to the computers that are designing "all microprocessors" in the last sentence of the stimulus. The industry spokesperson's argument presumes that microprocessors that are computer designed cannot contain design flaws.

Except it was already made clear in the first sentence that some computers could process information incorrectly! So that's the "evidence to the contrary" mentioned in answer choice E.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[Shelbyhenderson86]

i am not understanding the reason why b was incorrect seems very similar to E. When i read the statement i concerned this was talking about other flaws in the microprocessor. not the design how did this jump from the microprocessor to the whole computer?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Shelby!

As discussed in the explanation above, "The interviewer asks what guarantee there is that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed. Since “similarly flawed” clearly refers to the types of flaws just mentioned, this question must be about preventing microprocessor design flaws. Therefore, the industry spokesperson is not required to account for the possibility that a microprocessor can have a flaw other than a design flaw." The question is about design flaws so the spokesperson does not need to consider the possibility of other types of flaws to answer the question in a logically valid fashion. So answer choice (B) does not describe the flaw in the spokesperson's argument.

Answer choice (E), on the other hand, describes the flaw accurately. When identifying flaws, first identify the conclusion of the argument, then identify the premises used to support that conclusion. Then, ask yourself, why don't those premises fully support the conclusion? The spokesperson's conclusion is that there is no chance of microprocessor design flaws. Why? Because all of the microprocessors are now entirely computer designed. Why doesn't that premise prove that conclusion? Because this all started with computers who were flawed. If computers can be flawed themselves, then you can't prove that future computers won't be flawed simply because they are now entirely designed by computers (because the computers could be flawed!). Also, "Microprocessor design flaws" are a type of "computer error" so they fall under the umbrella of answer choice (E).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey