Q20 - Computer modeling of reasoning tasks is

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We understand our analytical capabilities better than we understand our senses.
Evidence: It's easier (and we have been able) to model reasoning tasks, like chess, with computers than it is to computer model our senses, such as sight.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument is essentially, "Since we have been more successful with computers modeling X than modeling Y, it appears we better understand X than Y."

This needs a bridge idea that would feel something like,
"The better we are at modeling something on a computer,
the better we are understanding that thing"
or something like
"in order to model something well on a computer, we have to first understand it".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This answer would be fine if you swapped out "performing" for "Understanding". The conclusion isn't saying we PERFORM analytical stuff better than sensory; it's saying we UNDERSTAND the former better than the latter

(B) Maybe … (ultimately, no) .. But we weren't talking about "understanding a computer's ability to do something"; we were talking about "how easy/possible it's been to make a computer model of something". Those are related but not equivalent.

(C) This is nowhere close to the "better we can computer model it, the better we understand it" bridge idea we're seeking. This principle is aimed at concluding whether or not something possesses true intelligence, which is completely out of scope.

(D) YES. If this just said, "The easier it is to make a computer model of a process, the better we understand that process", then it would ring very similar to the core. They tried to disguise its appeal by saying "the less difficult" instead of "the easier".

(E) The conclusion is not about what we should/ought to do, so a normative principle is not needed. Also, this is nowhere close to the bridge idea we're seeking.

Takeaway/Pattern: Principle-Support is all about finding a Bridge idea or Rule of Thumb that gets you from what the Premise says to what the Conclusion is trying to prove.

The "conclusion shortcut" on Principle questions is the idea that if we're concluding, as we are here, "we BETTER UNDERSTAND ___ than ____ ", then we're only interested in answer choices that provide principles that help you figure out which thing you better understand. Focusing on that, (A), (C), and (E) are worthless from the get-go.

#officialexplanation

[GlenH807]

The part that threw me off was "of our minds" in the stimulus so I was looking for an answer choice that would connect computers and humans --"our minds"; so I picked B :/

[ohthatpatrick]

I feel ya, there, but remember the correct answer to any Principle-Support question will be 1/2 Premise, 1/2 Conclusion.

I see how you matched up the "understand our own ability to perform something" with the Conclusion, but the other half of (B) doesn't have a Premise match.

We're never talking about how well we understand a computer's ability to perform a type of task.

Contrast that with (D), where "less difficult to computer model" matches beautifully to "computer modeling of ____ is far easier than of ____ " in the Premise.

[AlexK795]

I understand the rationale behind trying to differentiate "computer's ability to" and "constructing a computer model of" - that makes sense. Given the stimulus here, however, I really can't understand how I could have definitely concluded that we were not talking about "computer's ability" and we are instead supposed to only see it as "constructing a computer model of"

"computer modeling of reasoning tasks is far easier than computer modeling of other cognitive tasks, such as the processing of sense images. Computers can defeat chess champions, but cannot see. So, it appears that we understand the analytical abilities of our minds much better than we understand our senses"

The way I read this, I see two possible interpretations - someone constructing the computer model (D) or the computer actually running the computation (B) - Furthermore, the bit about computer defeating chess champions but not being able to see directly describes their "ability" to perform certain tasks. That's what pushed me towards selecting B. Without that bit, I really see this as true 50/50 ball depending on subjective interpretation.

Could you please explain to me why this one is not ambiguous, and why "computer's ability" cannot work? Thanks.