Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was o

[JbhB682]

https://imgur.com/GMClYhk


Source : GMAT prep

Hi, for this IR -- for the 2nd column - how does one eliminate Option F (last option) ?

[esledge]

I think it's the "real people can benefit from today" part: Professor A doesn't say anything about "real people" or make any judgment about the usefulness of the narrow domain AI. Prof A just says that general intelligence is different from limited task intelligence.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - thank you for responding. The answer is option D for the 2nd column

Playing devil's advocate, where in the stem does professor B talk about significant breakthroughs going to happen ? The word "significant breakthrough" seems to be too strong in light of what professor B actually stated.

All professor B stated was

..... Achievements in narrow AI will continue to flow, and eventually narrow AI will lead to the creation of systems with general intelligence.

Achievements in narrow AI will build one on top of each other and eventually , will create general intelligence

Significant breakthroughs may or may not happen this way. If anything, if you keep building off of the past achievements
-- the chances of significant breakthroughs are lower. Significant breakthroughs may or may be noticed along the way if you build one on top of each other -- one cannot be sure

[esledge]

You might be reading too much into the word "significant," and even if it is too strong, the double-negative that we have between the question and the "not" in choice D makes it less of a concern.

First, "significant" may be called for: Prof B's first sentence lists several "real results," any one of which could be considered significant by Prof B. Even if he or she didn't use the word "significant," they were characterized as "achievements" in the 2nd sentence. In any case, Prof B seems to be saying that getting a general result from narrow research is what is significant.

Second, the main idea in choice D is whether research in narrow AI leads to breakthroughs in general AI, and that's a very close match to what Prof B says in the sentence you quoted!

Finally, the double-negative thing: If Prof B would DISAGREE that narrow AI research would likely NOT lead to significant breakthroughs in general AI, then Prof B merely agrees that narrow AI research COULD lead to significant breakthroughs in general AI (not that it MUST).