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

[sdb606]

I'm a little bit confused about C. If a computer model malfunctions for a non-design flaw reason, couldn't that make the microprocessor designs that that faulty computer designs also faulty, thus undermining the argument?

In other words, the spokesman is ignoring the possibility that the computer designing microprocessors could itself be flawed which is the same as E.

Is the problem that the stimulus doesn't say that the flawed microprocessor models are being used to design other microprocessor models?

[Adam Tyson]

Answer C isn't pertinent to the argument because the argument is only about microprocessor design flaws. If the computer fails for some other reason, the industry spokesperson would just say "sure, that other thing went wrong, but all I said was that the microprocessor design would not be flawed." If the author can simply shrug off the alleged flaw and still have a valid argument, then that answer does not describe a flaw of that argument! It might be a problem for the computers and their users, but isn't a problem for this person's argumenta s described in the stimulus.

The problem is that the computers designing the microprocessors could themselves be flawed, which is what answer E is alluding too. The spokesperson seems to think they will be infallible, despite what he said earlier in the stimulus.

[sunshine123]

Hello,

Seeing that this is a multiple- response stimulus, i'm having trouble locating where a flaw, or gap, can be attributed to the spokespersons reasoning. Should we consider each response as an argument in itself that is liable to error? Or, do the flaws occur in going from one response to the other? With regard to the spokespersons final response, the fact that microprocessors are now computer-designed does not justify the claim that there are now no microscopic design flaws, unless we assume that computer designed microprocessors are not liable to error. Is such a train of thought, which looks only at the contained response, sufficient to deduce the arguments flaw? I would think, and yet, the answer choice, with its claim that there is "evidence to the contrary," suggests that the spokespersons other responses also have a bearing on the validity of the spokesperson's argument as a whole, i.e his statements considered together. The suggestion seems to be that the spokespersons first response, his concession that microprocessors are liable to error, seems to conflict with the assumption of the latter response, that computer designed computer ships are not liable to error. Does all this sound reasonable? Thank you for your time.

Best,
Sunshine

[Robert Carroll]

Sunshine,

We should evaluate the stimulus based on what it does and not prejudge anything about it. As with any stimulus, if there is an argument, identify the conclusion of it. The spokesperson does have an argument, and its conclusion is "There is no chance of further microprocessor design flaws." The evidence for that is that all microprocessors are entirely computer designed. This would work if we could trust microprocessors...but the argument is in a context where the industry spokesperson realizes microprocessors can be flawed, so using a computer to check a computer is going to be particularly problematic.

Essentially, I see no particular reason to ignore what the spokesperson said in the entire stimulus just because only the last statement involves a premise indicator and the conclusion of the spokesperson's argument. It's the same person throughout, so if that person is committed to thinking something in conflict with their eventual conclusion, that can be a flaw in their reasoning.

Robert Carroll