#7 - Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I have been thinking about this answer choice and still do not get why it is wrong, answer choice B.

PS: I have read the explanations online and I was still confused.

Thanks in advance!

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi ellenb,

Quickly reviewing that last sentence, shortening "Volitional Power" for easy reference:

Computers do not have V-power...

Computers V-power

V-power Computer


...although some non-human animals have V-Power:

non-human animals V-power

So, all we know is this: there is are some (that is, at least one) non-human animals that have V-power.

The only non-animal we have been told anything about is the computer, which doesn't have V-power.

...But that doesn't necessarily support B, which refers to non-animals in general (that is, all non-animals).


So, again, we know that computers don't have V-power, but that still leaves the possibility that there are other non-animals that do.


I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[uhinberg]

Not sure I understand the explanation posted. The way that it is written, it says that animals don't think as well as computers. Then it concludes from the fact that some animals have volition and computers don't that thinking is not necessary for volition. Isn't that flawed? Perhaps you need thinking and something else too. Doesn't the real explanation lie in the the fact that the stimulus says that computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything non-animals do. That means that computers perform actions that are somewhat close to thinking, but aren't actual thinking. Thus, non-animals a fortiori don't think. That, coupled with the fact that some animals have volition, proves that thinking is not necessary for volition.

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi uhinberg,

I'm not sure I see the difference in the string of logic you think is flawed and the one you propose. They look the same.

For clarity, the question can be thought of like this:

We know thinking can't be necessary for volition because animals have volition (second sentence) but don't think (first sentence). If something has attribute A but not attribute B, then it must not be necessary to have attribute B to have attribute A because we already have an example of that situation.

Hope that helps.