PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 24
Taken as a whole, the computers that constitute(47 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(10 more words not shown)
- Aequates the complexity(9 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(14 more words not shown)
- Cdraws a dubious(20 more words not shown)
- Dfails to give(18 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The Internet resembles a brain in these ways. Why should it resemble a brain in this further way?
Accept the similarities: a complex network transmits information, its parts are densely connected, and it grows at many points. Those observations make the comparison understandable. They don't yet show that humanlike intelligence will follow from those particular features.
Think of comparing a developing dog with a developing human. Both have ears and limbs, but those shared features wouldn't establish that the dog will develop human speech. We would need a connection between the similarities we identified and the further ability we predicted.
What we’re looking for
That's the flaw I'd look for here. The problem isn't that intelligence is impossible for the Internet. The problem is that this comparison hasn't established why the listed similarities are enough to produce it.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't simply define complexity as intelligence or treat every complex thing as intelligent. The reasoning uses several similarities to a human brain to predict another shared characteristic. A collapses that analogy into an equation between two traits, which doesn't accurately describe the inference.
- B
The conclusion says the Internet will someday gain humanlike intelligence. It doesn't say the Internet will be the first technology to do so. Another technology getting there earlier would be compatible with the prediction, so failing to consider that possibility isn't the problem.
- C
This describes an analogy between the information itself: what the brain processes and what the Internet transmits. The passage instead compares the networks' connections, transmission, and growth. We don't need a claim that the information has similar content. The unsupported step is from the structural similarities actually given to the development of intelligence.
- DCorrect
The author identifies shared characteristics without establishing that they are sufficient for humanlike intelligence to develop. Perhaps other features of a brain are needed too. We don't need to identify exactly what those features would be to see the missing support. Similarity in the listed respects doesn't automatically establish similarity in the predicted ability.
- E
The argument doesn't rely on the administrators wanting to create intelligence. It predicts that intelligence will develop from the network's characteristics. Whether the people administering it intend that outcome is separate from whether the analogy supports expecting it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.