Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. Graham never says that his chess example is the best example, and Adelaide is silent on this topic.

Incorrect. Neither speaker goes into the various intellectual activities humans engage in, nor does either refer to chess as typical in this regard.

Incorrect. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Facts

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/NA

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
G: A computer winning a chess tournament shows machines can master human intellectual activities and thus a truly intelligent machine will be made.

A: The computer was just doing what the programmers told it to do.

Answer Anticipation:
Going through Graham's argument, we see that he and Adelaide agree that a chess champion was defeated by a computer. Graham's statement that "any type" of intellectual activity can be mastered by a machine is much broader than anything Adelaide says, and she limits her discussion to this particular case, so we can't commit her to disagreeing with this statement. Graham's prediction about a truly intelligent machine isn't touched on by Adelaide—again, she limits her discussion to "the case [Graham] cite[s]," so she may believe that there are other cases that give cause to believe a truly intelligent machine will be created.

Going through Adelaide's argument, she focuses almost entirely on giving credit to the programmers. The computer was "simply an extension" of them, and it "enabled them to defeat a chess champion." Graham thinks the computer beat the chess champion; Adelaide gives credit to the programmers.

Since Adelaide and Graham attribute the defeat of the chess champion differently (to the computer; to the programmers behind the computer), the correct answer will likely highlight that.

Answer Explanation:
Graham believes the victory belongs to the computer ("The defeat . . . by a computer") whereas Adelaide gives credit to the programmers ("enabled them to defeat"), so he would agree with this statement whereas she would disagree, making it the point at issue between them.

Key Takeaway:
Going through each speaker's statements and analyzing if the other speaker has a different opinion on it will give you a complete view of any points at issue, so if you're struggling to find the overlap, go through the statements point-by-point!

Incorrect. Adelaide only speaks about this one case where intelligence wasn't demonstrated by a computer, so we can't generalize to other situations. Graham believes this example shows a truly intelligent machine will be devised, but that doesn't mean that intelligence has been demonstrated in this case—it may have only had a precondition met.

Incorrect. Graham believes a computer can master any human activity governed by fixed principles, so he'd arguably agree with this statement, but Adelaide doesn't raise this issue and, again, her statements are limited to one situation so it'd be hard to commit her to such a broad statement.