Anders: The physical structure of

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct81% picked this

   studies of the physical structure of birds provided information crucial to the development

   Why this is right

   This weakens Yang's argument, because Yang is saying, "Since we're presumably not going to copy the physical structure of the brain in order to build thinking machines (just as we didn't copy the physical structure of birds to build flying machines), researchers should just ignore the physical structure of the brain." We can use this answer to say, "No they shouldn't. The people who built the first aircraft didn't ignore the structure of birds. By studying birds' structure, they got crucial information that facilitated developing working aircraft. So it's very possible that studying the brain's structure could provide crucial information that assists in developing working thinking machines."

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

   81%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   researchers currently working on thinking machines take all thinking to involve both common sense

   The fact that researchers think thinking is comprised of common sense and factual knowledge (and maybe other things) doesn't give us any good way of arguing, "So they shouldn't ignore the structure of the brain."

   4%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison: time spent2% picked this

   as much time has been spent trying to develop a workable thinking machine as had been spent in

   When it comes to this analogy between birds/aircraft and brains/thinking machines, we don't really need there to be a comparable amount of time spent working on it. It won't affect the author's argument if more time has been spent working on thinking machines or if more time was spent working on aircraft. We only care about whether studying the structure of birds/brains is worthwhile when trying to build machines that emulate their functions.

   2%
4. D

   No Impact8% picked this

   researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain are among those who are trying

   The wording here seems pretty relevant, but does it make any difference whether this idea is true or false? Let's say that among those working on thinking machines, there are at least some researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain. Does that help / hurt Yang? It doesn't seem to have any effect. If there are currently some brain-structure specialists working on thinking machines, Yang can say "Go ahead and fire them. They're useless" or say "Cool, just tell them to ignore the brain's structure and to focus on function". If there are currently no brain-structure experts working on thinking machines, does that impact Yang's argument? No, he'd just be like, "Okay, cool. Well, we don't really need them, so that's chill."

   8%
5. E

   No Impact5% picked this

   some flying machines that were not closely modeled on birds failed

   We can't hurt Yang by saying, "Hey, Yang --- you know there was at least one flying machine that wasn't modeled on birds and it didn't work". He'd be like, "Cool, I never said 100% of the ones that weren't modeled on birds were successful. I said 100% of the ones that were modeled on birds were unsuccessful. The only models that were successful weren't structurally similar to birds."

   5%