PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 16
Some have argued that once it becomes necessary(78 more words not shown)
The claim that the computers(18 more words not shown)
- AIt is held(12 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(6 more words not shown)
- CIt is an(8 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(4 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Describing a computer as wanting to execute its code doesn't automatically mean the computer has a desire. That language might help us understand what it does without settling what, if anything, it experiences. So I can see the concern about using our way of describing computers as a test for whether they have beliefs and desires.
The author tests the proposed rule by applying it now. We're told that we already need to think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires to understand them. Under the proposed rule, that would mean today's computers have beliefs and desires. The author treats that result as unacceptable and uses it to reject the rule.
What we’re looking for
That's the distinction the role question needs. The author's own conclusion is that the criterion is flawed. The claim about today's computers is what the criterion would lead us to say, and the author presents that implication as a reason to abandon it. We can identify that role without resolving the philosophical question ourselves.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The claim is an implication the author finds unacceptable. If we use the suggested criterion, we end up attributing beliefs and desires to existing computers. The author regards that result as a problem for the criterion, rather than adopting it as a discovery about computers.
- B
The author doesn't present this as an accepted, uncontroversial truth. The rejection of the criterion depends on treating this implication as unacceptable. B misses the difference between saying that a rule leads to a claim and agreeing with that claim.
- C
The claim does show what the criterion would imply in a particular case, but the author's purpose goes beyond clarifying how the rule works. This result is the objection to the rule. A captures that critical role; C makes it sound like a neutral illustration.
- D
The argument concludes that the suggested criterion is flawed. The statement about current computers is the outcome of applying that criterion, which the author uses to reach the actual conclusion. It isn't the author's final position.
- E
The argument doesn't need this claim to be true. It treats the claim as an unacceptable consequence. What matters to the argument is that the proposed criterion leads to it, not that computers really have the beliefs and desires the criterion would assign to them.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.