Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S4 · Q19 A successful chess-playing computer

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

A successful chess-playing computer would prove either that a machine can think or that chess does not involve thinking.

Conclusion

If a successful chess-playing computer were invented, the conception of human intelligence would certainly change.

Evidence

If a successful chess-playing computer were invented, it would either prove that a machine can think or that chess doesn't involve thinking.

Evaluate

This argument is saying,

This implies that both B and C would each lead to Z.

How does that match up with the actual concepts from the argument? The successful chess computer will lead to "a machine can think" or "chess doesn't involve thinking". And the author thinks either one leads to a change in the conception of human intelligence.

Formally:

if we thought a → change conception of machine can think human intelligence

if we thought chess → change conception of didn't involve thinking human intelligence

Goal

The author assumes that currently we think "machines can't think" / "chess does involve thinking" (otherwise learning either of those things couldn't possibly change us).

But the author is also assuming a weird connection between whether machines think / whether chess involves thinking and how we think about human intelligence.

Since the author never discussed "our concept of human intelligence" in the evidence but is talking about it in the conclusion, we can expect our answer to have language referring to "our conception of human intelligence".

19.

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it does not consider the possibility that

the conception of intelligence is
Not an Objection
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% picked this
a truly successful chess program
Not an Objection
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% picked this
computer programs have been successfully
Out of Scope: other than chess
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.
2% picked this
Correct
a successful chess-playing computer would
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% picked this
the inability to play chess
Out of Scope: lack of opportunity
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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free