PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 19
Anders: The physical structure of the brain plays(97 more words not shown)
In evaluating Yang's argument it(7 more words not shown)
- Astudies of the(13 more words not shown)
- Bresearchers currently working(14 more words not shown)
- Cas much time(20 more words not shown)
- Dresearchers who specialize(16 more words not shown)
- Esome flying machines(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A different design might work. That doesn't show copying the brain is likely to fail.
I have questions for both speakers. Anders moves from the brain's structure being important to recommending that machines copy it. Perhaps another design could achieve the same function. Yang makes the opposite recommendation after comparing brains and computers with birds and aircraft. But perhaps the brain is a useful model even if some other model could also work.
Yang's final advice is especially strong: simply ignore the brain's physical structure. The aircraft analogy needs to support that advice, not merely show that a successful machine can look different from the natural example.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what would be most helpful to know in evaluating Yang's reasoning. My first thought is to examine whether the analogy really supports the proposed research method. What does the aircraft comparison tell us about how researchers should reach a successful design?
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A finished aircraft can look unlike a bird even if studying a bird's structure helped people invent it. If those studies supplied crucial information, the very example Yang relies on would give us a reason not to ignore natural structure. Studying a model and copying it closely are different things.
That would matter to thinking-machine research: scientists might learn something useful from the brain's structure and still build a machine differently. A therefore tests a missing distinction within the analogy.
If the answer is yes, Yang's recommendation to ignore structure becomes less convincing. If the answer is no, this particular objection based on crucial structural information loses force. A no answer wouldn't prove the entire argument, but the two answers would affect our assessment in meaningfully different ways.
- B
Agreement about the definition of thinking doesn't settle how to build a thinking machine. The passage already describes the kind of decision-making under discussion. We need to evaluate the recommended design approach, not find out whether researchers use the same description of the goal.
- C
Equal amounts of time spent on two projects wouldn't establish that the best research approaches are the same. Nor would different amounts of time show the analogy fails. The useful question concerns what the aircraft experience reveals about studying structure, not simply how long the projects took.
- D
A specialist in brain structure could be part of the project without that specialty proving useful. Conversely, a team might learn from brain structure without including someone described as a specialist. The researchers' backgrounds don't tell us whether ignoring structure would improve the chance of success.
- E
Some designs that differed from birds could fail while other such designs succeeded. Yang hasn't claimed that every departure from a bird's structure guarantees flight. The existence of unsuccessful alternatives therefore doesn't directly test the advice to ignore natural structure as A does.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.