#25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

[Jay Donnell]

Hi AM7474!

In reading the earlier queries and replies on this thread, I agree vehemently both with the (fatal) attraction toward A, as well as the explanation as to why it is incorrect. The stimulus discusses the same programs on computers with varying speeds, not different programs on the same computer, which leaves A as a great example of a 'shell game' mixup.

I'm having a little trouble fully understanding your question regarding the phrasing of the first sentence and it's relation to possible other phrasings, but I will give it my best shot! In my opinion, the claim that says 'One way to compare chess playing programs is to...' is semantically equivalent to saying 'One way to compare chess playing programs against each other...' In an other example to hopefully help elucidate, if I were to mention comparing law schools, it would certainly be intended that I was in fact comparing them to/against each other.

In the case of your hypothetical rearranging so that it was made clear that we were comparing programs against each other (one the same computer) in the first sentence, then later comparing the speed of one program across two computers subsequently, I don't think the answer would change as the claim specifies running an experiment "Given any two computers with which A chess-playing program is compatible."

One last point to help cement support for C is that I technically would consider the question type not a MBT but rather a Most Strongly Supported (MSS), which allows for a little more lenience in burden of proof, which alleviates some concern regarding the inclusion of the term 'generally' in the correct response.

It's better to be cynical than careless, so I think this heavy investigative detail proves you are definitely on the right path!

[Lily123]

Does the last sentence "This is simply because..." indicate a causal relationship?

Better chance of winning caused by being able to examine more moves in the same amount of time

[Adam Tyson]

Yes, exactly, and that's why answer C is the best answer choice - it supplies that very inference! The author assumes that examining more moves increases the chances of winning, and that active relationship is causal.

[marshallmg]

Unfortunately I was stuck between answer C and D and incorrectly chose D. I understand from the previous posts why C is correct but I'm having a little trouble completely eliminating D. D states the relationship outlined in the stimulus, which is the faster the program can run, the more moves that can be analyzed and the better chance it will have of winning. My reasoning for choosing D was that it pretty much outlined exactly what was stated in the stimulus. Is D wrong because it states "2 different chess playing programs" whereas the stimulus is comparing one program being run on 2 different computers? Thanks for the help!

[Adam Tyson]

That's exactly right, marshallmg! We have no information in the stimulus that would allow us to compare two different programs to each other, but only a single program on two different computers. Good catch!

[Albertlyu]

Hi PS,

Please can anyone tell me what is wrong with answer choice E? is it because that we do not how slow the slower computer is, or how much more time that the slower computer will be given, therefore, we can not know if the chance is gonna be equal?

thanks,

AL

[Robert Carroll]

Albert,

Answer choice (E) doesn't really make sense because it's far too strong. It seems to make sense - if the slower computer gets more time, it should balance out, right? That's already actually not necessarily true - the stimulus talked about having "fixed time limits per move" and this answer is purposely NOT keeping the time limits fixed, but instead varying them for each computer. But it's even worse. This application of answer choice (E) looks like it might make sense:

"Computer A runs half as fast as Computer B. So give Computer A 2 minutes for each move and Computer B 1 minute for each move. They'll play equally well."

That's already too strong, but it gets worse - answer choice (E) says that giving more time to the slower computer will make it equally as good as the faster computer. OK...so why not give the slower computer an hour each move, while giving the faster computer a microsecond each move? Answer choice (E) says the two computers should play equally well. So ANY imbalance in time between computers, as long as it gives more time to the slower computer, is supposed to result in equal outcomes. That's not even intuitively plausible, and certainly doesn't have to be true based on the stimulus.

Robert Carroll

[ange.li6778]

Does the last sentence "This is simply because..." indicate a causal relationship?

Better chance of winning caused by being able to examine more moves in the same amount of time

So was A incorrect in part because it contained conditional reasoning, not causal? I didn't realize that was something we had to watch out for in MBT questions (feels more like a parallel reasoning tactic)...

[katehos]

Hi Ange,

The issue with answer choice (A) is not necessarily that it uses conditional reasoning, but rather because it deviates from the stimulus. Answer choice (A) is discussing two different programs being used on the same computer, while the stimulus is discussing "two computers."

Answer choice (C), however, is supported by the stimulus because the stimulus asserts that a given program on two computers will have a better chance at winning on the faster computer because it can examine more possible moves. Therefore, we can support the idea that the more moves a program can examine, the better chances of winning!

Hope this helps
Kate

[annabelle.swift]

Hi, so on my initial read, I did think that the stimulus was comparing 1 program on 2 computers. However, when I reread the stimulus, the first sentence ("One way to compare chess-playing programs is to compare how they perform with fixed time limits per move") made me think I was somehow misreading the second sentence and that actually, the second sentence WAS talking about 2 different programs.

Why would anyone talk about comparing programs against each other and then immediately pivot to talk about comparing 1 program on 2 computers? How can I avoid this kind of misinterpretation in the future?

Thanks!