#7 - Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (A)

This argument consists entirely of premises. Since the premises are fairly absolute, there is a good chance we will be required to infer a conclusion based on these premises.

From the first premise, we know that non-human animals do not think as well as some computers. From the second premise, we observe that nonhuman animals have volitional powers.

Together, the inference is that since nonhuman animals do not think as well as computers, but do have volitional powers, thinking is not necessary for volition. We should look for that conclusion in the answer choices, and not waste time trying to justify other responses.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, and is a fairly direct statement of the conclusion you should infer.

Answer choice (B): This answer may be attractive, because the stimulus has stated that computers do not have volitional powers, and humans constitute a type of animal. However, there might be classifications in the universe other than computers and animals (human and nonhuman animals), so you should eliminate this choice. Remember, even if none of those other classifications could possess volitional powers, there was no information in this stimulus to that effect.

Answer choice (C): Should read "Computers possess none of the attributes of living things." Since thinking and volition are not the only attributes of living things, this answer choice is unsupported by the stimulus. Even if you thought this was a true statement about reality, remember that Must Be True questions require you to stick as closely as possible to the information in the stimulus, and to avoid bringing in outside details.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it is directly opposite the conclusion inferred from the premises.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice attempts to project current reality into the future. However, with time and technological advance can come change, so this choice is incorrect. Unless a stimulus actually says something about such a trend, you should always assume that the future does not have to reflect the present.

[mkuo]

Hi there,

I'm having a bit of trouble doing questions that asks for an answer that is most strongly supported by the stimulus. In other words, I am to find a conclusion/inference for the stimulus. I took the course in January but I can't seem to find this type of questions under Lesson 4 Strengthening, where it's the reverse: picking an answer that supports the stimulus, instead of one that is supported by the stimulus.

Anyway back to the question:

How does the stimulus support (A) where having volitional powers need not involve thinking?

The stimulus states computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do. To me that just sounds like a degree of "thinking", which in relative terms, computers can do it better than nonhuman animals. It does not mean nonhuman animals do not perform actions close to "thinking". In fact, we don't know if nonhuman animals are capable of such actions at all, we just know computers do it better than these animals.

So how can we come to the conclusion that volitional powers do not need "thinking"?
Isn't it possible that actions close to "thinking" is necessary for volitional powers?

It would really be helpful too if you could please point out where in the book is this type of questions covered... I took the full length course so that's the text book i used.

These problems are categorized as "Most Strongly Supported" under some materials. I find this type surprisingly difficult.

Sincerely,

Mike

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I am a bit confused with the answer to this questions,

why in the answer choices did they have some computers instead of computers? it did not say some computers perform actions, but it said computers perform actions.

Also how did they come up with the answer, I thought more like this:

---Not think as well as computers
Nonhuman Animals---
---- Have volitional powers

So we can have A-->B and C (A nonhuman Animals and B and C, thinking and volition)

However, I am really confused on how did they come up with the statement that thinking is not necessary for volition?

Thanks

Ellen

[Nikki Siclunov]

Dear mkuo,

Thanks for your question.

First off, let's make a distinction between these two question stems:

"Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?"

vs.

"Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?"

In the first instance, your job is to assume that each answer choice represents a true statement, and then determine which one is most helpful to validating the conclusion of the argument. This is a classic Strengthen question.

In the second example, your job is to determine which answer choice is most strongly supported by the information in the stimulus. This is an inference (or, as we call them, Must Be True) question. These questions were introduced in Lessons 1 and 2.

Now onto your question re: October 1997, S2, Q7:

Look at the first sentence more closely: computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do. Based on this statement, neither computers nor nonhuman animals actually think: they just perform actions that approximate "thinking" to various degrees. Computers simply do a better job at it than nonhuman animals do. Clearly, whatever actions nonhuman animals are capable of performing, they are far removed from what we call "thinking." Thus, since some of them have volitional powers, we can conclude that having volitional powers need not involve thinking:

Thinking Animals Volitional Powers

This question contains elements of formal logic, which is examined in detail in Lesson 8 Online Supplement (see .pdf file along with Virtual module). But generally speaking, Must Be True questions are covered in Lessons 1 and 2.

Let me know if this answers your question!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi ellenb,

The stimulus consists of three premises:

Premise 1: Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do.

• Based on the statement, neither computers nor nonhuman animals actually think: they just perform actions that approximate "thinking" to various degrees. Computers simply do a better job at it than nonhuman animals do. Clearly, whatever actions nonhuman animals are capable of performing, they are far removed from what we call "thinking":
  
  Animals Think

Premise 2: Computers do not have volitional powers.

• Computers Volitional Powers

Premise 3: Some non-human animals have volitional powers.

• Animals Volitional Powers

Now, let's combine the three premises:

• Think Animals Volitional Powers Computers

Clearly, since some animals have volitional powers but none of them can actually think, we can conclude that having volitional powers need not involve thinking.

This question contains elements of formal logic, which is examined in detail in Lesson 8 Online Supplement (see .pdf file along with Virtual module).

Let me know if this answers your question.

Thanks!

[ellenb]

Thanks Nikki,

Just to follow up with this answer so based on the above example:

A<-|->B (A double not arrow B) can be switched to B<-|->A (B double not arrow A) ?


And when we have
A<-|->B<-some->C we can have A<-|->C ?


Thanks

Ellen

[Nikki Siclunov]

Yes, the (double-not) arrow can be reversed: if no lawyers are doctors (L D), it follows that no doctors are lawyers (D L).

Let me give you a hypothetical with the "some" link thrown in the mix:

No lawyers are doctors; however, some doctors are electricians.

When diagrammed, it would look like this:

L D E

Both arrows are reversible. So, let's start reading this from the weakest link (which is the "some" link connecting D and E): if some electricians are doctors, but no doctors are lawyers, it follows that some electricians are NOT lawyers:

E NOT L

This is all formal logic, so I recommend you use the online resources under Lesson 8 to brush up on it

Nikki

[mkuo]

Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your help!You are right it is right there under must be true.


Cheers

[ellenb]

Thanks,

And when you say no Doctors are lawyers, you are essentially introducing the Doctors (sufficient) and negating the necessary (which is Lawyers)

It should look something like this: D->not L (meaning no doctors are lawyers)

Right?

I will look more into the handout that you mentioned, but just want to make sure that I got this part.

Thanks

[Nikki Siclunov]

Yeap, you got it! The way we diagram the phrase "No A's are B's" is:


A B

You can also diagram it as A Not B (and, of course, B Not A).

Definitely check out the Lesson 8 formal logic handout on the OSC.