PrepTest 114

Incorrect. It is a conclusion of the argument, but Yang continues on to use the likely failure of Anders' method to work to support her own recommendation for how thinking machines should be designed, so it's not the main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
A: The brain's structure is important to thinking, so researchers should base their computers designed to think on that structure.

Y: That's like saying planes should be built like birds, which doesn't work
Thus - Computers structured like brains are likely to fail
And therefore - They should focus on the function, not the structure, of the brain

Answer Anticipation:
This question asks us to describe the role of a statement in Yang's argument.

Overall, Yang's argument starts off structured to rebut Anders' argument. She starts by bringing up an important distinction (important vs. essential). After that, she moves on to an analogy to show why Anders' recommended course of action is a bad one. From this, she reaches the statement in question—a conclusion ("so") predicting that a computer designed as Anders suggests would be likely to fail. So the correct answer should highlight it as some type of conclusion.

The argument continues, however, and makes a recommendation about an alternative, so Yang's statements aren't just rebutting Anders' argument. As a recommendation made by the author, this statement is likely the main point. As a statement following a conclusion that itself has a conclusion indicator word ("therefore"), this statement is likely the main point. And the probable failure of Anders' recommendation to lead to a workable solution supports this alternative as a better option. All signs point to the last sentence being the main point, so the statement in question is an intermediate conclusion. Let's find an answer saying so.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the role of the statement in question. The statement is backed up by the analogy, but it is itself used to support the need for an alternative approach—which Yang offers. As such, the statement in question is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the main point.

Key Takeaway:
Most rebuttal arguments that state an opinion of an opposing point have that opinion serve as the main point of the argument. Here, however, it's an intermediate conclusion that backs up the main point—which is Yang's own recommendation about how researchers should move forward with the design of a thinking machine. There's no rule of thumb that you can use to determine which of these two is the main point when both types of statements are present—you have to dig into the structure and logic of the question to see how they interact.

Incorrect. The statement in question is about a specific situation—thinking machines modeled on the brain—so it's not a general principle about research.

Incorrect. The only general claim that Yang makes is her opening sentence, and the statement in question doesn't illustrate it.

Incorrect. Since it's introduced with a conclusion indicator word, it's definitely not merely background information. It's also Yang's opinion of Anders' argument, so it's a part of the argument, not context.