A successful chess-playing computer

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection19% picked this

   the conception of intelligence is inextricably linked to that

   Would we be weakening the author's argument by saying, "Yo, author, the concepts of intelligence and thought are tightly linked!" No, we'd be agreeing with the author. She's arguing that what we learn about thinking (in regards to machines / chess) will affect how we think about human intelligence. So clearly she thinks they're linked.

   19%
2. B

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   a truly successful chess program may never

   The author's argument is hypothetical. I can say "flying to another galaxy would be an expensive journey", even if I don't think we will ever fly to another galaxy. This author would freely accept that, "Sure, a truly successful chess program won't ever be invented. But if it were, it would prove that a machine can think or that chess doesn't require thinking."

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope: other than chess3% picked this

   computer programs have been successfully applied to games other

   It doesn't seem relevant to bring up computers as they relate to games other than chess, and it certainly doesn't seem like it weakens the argument in any way to say that computers have been successful at other games.

   3%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   a successful chess-playing computer would not model a human approach to

   Why this is right

   This isn't super appealing to me on a first look, but would it hurt the author's argument for us to say that a successful chess computer wouldn't be modeled on a human approach? Yes, because the author is making this curious move from a premise about whether machines can think / whether chess involves thinking, to a conclusion that is suddenly about our conception of human intelligence. This answer helps us argue the anti-conclusion: "Our conception of human intelligence wouldn't change because of a successful chess computer; after all, that computer wouldn't be modeled on a human approach to chess playing, so we wouldn't draw any connections between what the computer could do and what humans are doing when they play chess."

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
5. E

   Out of Scope: lack of opportunity7% picked this

   the inability to play chess has more to do with lack of opportunity than with

   This answer seems to catch me out of left field -- lack of opportunity? This answer would make sense if an author were saying, "Bob isn't able to play chess. He must not be intelligent" We could argue an alternate explanation for Bob's inability to play chess. But this has nothing to do with our conversation about whether a successful chess computer would change our conception of human intelligence (as a species).

   7%