Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S4 · Q6 In any field, experience is required

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

Start practicing free

In any field, experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert.

Conclusion (for this reason)

Computerized "expert systems" cannot be as good as human experts.

Evidence

The hallmark of expertise is having an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation.

Computers can store millions of bits of information, but the knowledge of human experts is not stored in the form of rules and facts.

Evaluate

This is a Comparative argument. We're comparing computers to humans and Assuming a Difference:

Humans do something / have something special that computers don't have.

We know that humans can be experts, but they don't get there by storing rules and facts, they benefit from the experience of thousands of situations.

Are we assuming that computers are unable to similarly benefit from the experience of thousands of situations? (computers that model AI often have simulated neural networks that allow them to aggregate experience similar to human brains).

Suppose computers are stuck using rules and facts — are we assuming that rules and facts do not enable one to have immediate, intuitive responses to each new situation?

Goal

Look for an answer establishing a clear difference between humans and computers, that helps to establish the fact that computers will not be able to have an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation.

6.

The argument requires the assumption of which one of the following?

  1. Computers can show no more

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  2. Correct

    The knowledge of human experts

    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% picked this

  3. Human experts rely on information

    Opposite

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

    8% picked this

  4. Future advances in computer technology

    Irrelevant

    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% picked this

  5. Human experts rely heavily on

    Too Strong: rely heavily Reversed Causality

    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% 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