#24 - Taken as a whole, the computers that constitute the

[flexbubbleboi]

Thanks, Kelsey -- I'm still a little tripped up. Wouldn't a system's similarity to another depend both their form and content? A 3-D printer that prints out cookie dough into shapes and a similar 3-D printer that prints out plastic into shapes would be performing two different functions: making food versus making whatever plastic items the latter was making.

If the question is saying the Internet and the brain function in a comparable way, it seems like that would have to imply that both their structure and their content are similar. Although the question refers more explicitly to structural elements of the brain and the Internet, it also says that they're both processing "information," implying that that information is also analogous, when it may not be!

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just really trying to figure out how to not get this wrong in the future!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer C is that at no point does the author say anything about the kinds of information being processed, flexbubbleboi. The author doesn't say that the information processed by the internet is similar to the information processed by the brain, therefore the internet will gain intelligence. It is only about the structure. The author might even agree that the kinds of information are very different in the two cases - packets of data in binary code in one case, sensory input and emotional responses that might be more like analog data in the other; calculations in one, memories in the other, etc.

The author's sole point of comparison is the number of points of connection, which is the reason the argument is flawed. C is just there to trap you because it starts off so nicely!

[flexbubbleboi]

I understand now, thank you!

[Myfamily1999]

I understand why D is the correct answer but I don't understand why B would be wrong either. Would it be because there are no other technologies and someday will gain humanlike intelligence?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Myfamily!

Good question! When you are analyzing a flaw in the reasoning, it is essential to identify and describe the assumptions present in the argument itself.

In this stimulus, the propositions describe characteristics of the internet that suggest similarities with the human brain. However, then the argument jumps to the conclusion that on the basis of these similarities, the internet will acquire a humanlike intelligence.

In your prephrasing, focus on the connection between these premises and this conclusion.

Whether other technologies beat the internet to the punch is not part of the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Let's consider a hypothetical. What if other technologies did simulate humanlike intelligence before the internet. If this were the case, would the author's conclusion be called into question? No, the author could still reach the conclusion that the internet would achieve human intelligence. If it's after other stuff, so what? Doesn't interfere with the author's argument.

Thus whether that the author's argument "fails to consider" this other possibility is not relevant to whether this arguments conclusion is valid or invalid.

[sean.reilly]

Hello! Could someone help me understand why answer choice D is correct?

I chose C and ultimately eliminated D because I felt that it did not accurately describe the stimulus. My read was that the stimulus does provide a reason why these characteristics - complexity and growth - are sufficient for the development of intelligence. The reason is the analogy to the human brain, ie the brain possesses these characteristics as well. It's a bad reason, but it is a reason nonetheless.

As a result, I eliminated D for not accurately describing the stimulus and eventually chose C. Even though I did not like that it seemed overly focused on the type of information being processed, it seemed like the best AC after eliminating D.

Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Sean!

There'd need to be considerably more in the stimulus for the conclusion to follow, which is why (D) is correct. All that the stimulus offers in its current state is that the computers that form the internet are in some ways like a human brain. It doesn't follow, just because they are like a human brain in some respects, that these computers will continue to grow into being like human brains in all respects. They may be similar in some ways without ever being able to gain humanlike intelligence. Perhaps the conclusion could be more plausible if there were an added sentence that defined "humanlike intelligence" and it was overwhelmingly clear that the mentioned computers fit that definition.

Or a weaker conclusion could have also made this stimulus less flawed. The conclusion could have instead been something like, "So the internet itself possesses some of the precursors to human intelligence." That is much weaker than claiming that we can expect that it will gain human intelligence.