Q19 - A successful chess-playing computer

[cyruswhittaker]

For this question, I was still unclear with the SuperPrep explanation.

Basically, is D pointing out that there might not be a direct link to "thought" in a general sense and "human intelligence?" It seems as though the argument must require a presumed link to be true; otherwise, how can we establish a connection between the two?

Any elaboration would be great, as well as any further thoughts on SuperPrep's explanation.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

I'm not a fan of the SuperPrep explanation. In fact, I think it goes pretty far in the wrong direction. Because the dichotomy presented in the argument is its premise, we're not really looking to challenge it. And the correct answer, (D), is not correct for the reason your book says.

Okay, so here's my take on this one. The premise tells us that a computer that plays chess successfully would prove either that machines can think or that chess doesn't involve thinking. From this, the argument concludes that our conception of human intelligence would change.

The gap here is actually between computers and humans. Why would our conception of human intelligence change just because a computer can think, or play chess without thinking? The big assumption is that the computer would play chess in a way similar to the way in which a human would play chess.

(D) is correct, therefore, because it attacks that assumption. If a successful chess-playing computer doesn't model a human approach to chess playing, there's no reason to conclude that it will change our conception of human intelligence.

(A) is closer to strengthening the argument, but it still doesn't link computers and humans.

(B) is out of scope. The argument is about what would happen if such a program were invented.

(C) is out of scope. We don't care about other games.

(E) is also out of scope. The argument has nothing to do with opportunity vs. intelligence.

Does that help at all, or are you still puzzled by this one? Let me know.

[farhadshekib]

Thanks for the question.

I'm not a fan of the SuperPrep explanation. In fact, I think it goes pretty far in the wrong direction. Because the dichotomy presented in the argument is its premise, we're not really looking to challenge it. And the correct answer, (D), is not correct for the reason your book says.

Okay, so here's my take on this one. The premise tells us that a computer that plays chess successfully would prove either that machines can think or that chess doesn't involve thinking. From this, the argument concludes that our conception of human intelligence would change.

The gap here is actually between computers and humans. Why would our conception of human intelligence change just because a computer can think, or play chess without thinking? The big assumption is that the computer would play chess in a way similar to the way in which a human would play chess.

(D) is correct, therefore, because it attacks that assumption. If a successful chess-playing computer doesn't model a human approach to chess playing, there's no reason to conclude that it will change our conception of human intelligence.

(A) is closer to strengthening the argument, but it still doesn't link computers and humans.

(B) is out of scope. The argument is about what would happen if such a program were invented.

(C) is out of scope. We don't care about other games.

(E) is also out of scope. The argument has nothing to do with opportunity vs. intelligence.

Does that help at all, or are you still puzzled by this one? Let me know.

(A) is actually already assumed by the argument... is it not?

If the concept of intelligence is not inextricably linked to that of thought, then the argument falls apart.

If thought can exist without intelligence, then the fact that machines can think, or that chess does not involve thinking, should not necessarily alter our conception of intelligence.


It

[zainrizvi]

I can't see how A) is wrong..

If conception of intelligence is inextricably linked to that of thought, then anything that DOES not involve thinking would have no effect on intelligence.. hence, if chess does not involve thinking, then no comment can be made on the conception of human intelligence changing... I'm drawing blank at this point on whats wrong...

And D) seems like such a vague, abstract response.. can anyone clarify that as well?

[noah]

You've got a good handle on a flaw in this question, it looks like you got turned around. Here goes...

The conclusion of this argument is that the idea of human intelligence would change if a computer can successfully play chess.

Why? Because it would either prove a machine can think, or that chess doesn't involve thinking.

Hmm, let's find the gap!

I notice that there's a shift in terminology: first the argument talks about thinking, then it shifts to talking about intelligence. Maybe those things are different.

Also, I notice that the conclusion talks about "human" intelligence, but the premise doesn't mention humans at all. So, maybe there's no connection. Perhaps chess doesn't involve human intelligence (!), or, more sensibly, perhaps what computers can do with chess says nothing about how we operate. This is what (D) is getting at.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is very tempting since there is a gap between intelligence and though, however in this question our job is to point out that these ideas might NOT have to be linked. (A) strengthens the link.

(B) is irrelevant - the argument is about what if one were invented.

(C) is out of scope.

(E) is about inability to play chess - out of scope.

One last note: there's a suspicious either/or in the premise. Either the machine can think, or chess doesn't involve thinking. Well, what if machines can't think, but chess does involve thinking for us humans, but not for computers? For computers it might be all about some sort of mechanical calculation that we would not call "thinking." Watch out! I'd be wary of this line of thinking since this would entail arguing with the premise, which is not our job on the LSAT. In certain cases, there's support for a premise, thus making that premise an intermediate conclusion, in which case the LSAT might capitalize on a gap there, but 90%+ of the time, the gap is the one involving the final conclusion.