In any field, experience is required

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong7% picked this

   Computers can show no more originality in responding to a situation than that built into

   Too Strong: no more than built-in Out of Scope: originality This gets near the idea that computers, unlike humans, won't be able to have immediate / intuitive responses to each new situation. But is that the same thing as "having more originality than what the programmers built in"? Not quite. An expert quarterback is an expert because he has an immediate, intuitive response to the way the defense is moving once the ball is snapped. That has nothing to do with him being original in this thinking; expertise is just about making the correct judgment for a situation.

   7%
2. B

   Correct78% picked this

   The knowledge of human experts cannot be adequately rendered into the type of information that

   Why this is right

   This answer is essentially giving us one of our prephrases: Are we assuming that computers are unable to similarly benefit from the experience of thousands of situations? We know that humans don't develop expertise via rules and facts but rather via experiencing thousands of situations. The argument assumes that this option isn't available to computers, or that the option of converting expert human knowledge into rules and facts (for the computer's sake) isn't available. The easiest way to pick this answer is the Negation Test. If we negate this answer, it definitely sounds like an Objection to the conclusion that "computer expert systems cannot be as good as human experts": the knowledge of human experts can be adequately rendered into the type of information that a computer can store.

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

   78%
3. C

   Opposite8% picked this

   Human experts rely on information that can be expressed by rules and facts when they

   The argument is actually implying that human experts do not use rules and facts.

   8%
4. D

   Irrelevant1% picked this

   Future advances in computer technology will not render computers capable of sorting through greater

   We already know that computers have plenty of capacity for information storage (they can store millions of bits of info, whereas humans are using thousands of situations). The limitation of computers isn't how much information they can sort through. It's the fact idea that they can only think in rules and facts. Adding more information-sorting capacity seemingly wouldn't change that, so negating this answer wouldn't be any sort of Objection to the argument.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: rely heavily Reversed Causality6% picked this

   Human experts rely heavily on intuition while they are developing a repertory

   The author thinks that experts have intuition based on their repertory of models, but this is reversing that and making it sound like they used intuition to make their models.

   6%