PrepTest 114

Incorrect. Even if computers can show more originality in responding to situations than they're designed to show, there's no indication that it can rise to the level needed to match humans. Additionally, this answer brings in several ideas that aren't mentioned in the stimulus, which is a usual sign of an answer that is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Expertise - Experience that leads to proficiency resulting in immediate/intuitive responses
Computers - Store millions of bits of information
Human experts - Have knowledge from thousands of experiences that aren't stored as rules/facts
Conclusion - Computer expert systems can't be as good as humans

Answer Anticipation:
This Strengthen with Necessary Premise question reaches a relative conclusion—computer "experts" will never be as good as human experts. To reach such a comparative conclusion stating that one thing is better than another, a relevant difference between the two things must be established, along with what would make something "better."

Here, the argument does establish what makes someone a "better" expert—they must develop proficiency until they have an immediate and intuitive response to new situations.

The argument then attempts to establish a relevant difference between humans and computers, but it fails to land the plane. While it does show that computers store information in millions of bits and humans gain knowledge from thousands of experiences that are just rules/facts, it never establishes that these two "systems" can't contain the same information. The argument assumes that bits can't store the non-rules-based knowledge of humans, but it never establishes that to be the case, so the correct answer will almost certainly do so.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant difference between humans and computers. If the knowledge that makes a human an expert can't be converted into bits, then the argument works; if it can be, then the argument falls apart, as there's no longer a difference between humans and computers as far as the ability to demonstrate expertise is concerned. As such, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument concludes that one thing is "better" than the other, it needs to establish two things in the premises. First, it needs to establish what makes something "better"—a principle that defines what that means. Second, it needs to discuss that criteria for the two things being compared. If the argument is missing either of those parts, then the correct answer is likely to supply it.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer brings up a way that human experts are similar to how the author views computers, which cuts against the argument.

Incorrect. Future developments are relevant to the argument, as the conclusion isn't about what is currently the case. However, the implied difference between humans and computers is about how they store information, not how much information is stored.

Incorrect. This answer is about how humans develop expertise, not how they apply it once they have it, so it's out of scope.