Oscar: Emerging information technologies will

Answer choices

1. A

   An Assumption, Not an Objection24% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that the ability of countries to acquire new technologies at some time in the future will depend on factors other

   This answer is written as though it's presenting an Objection (overlooks the possibility), but it's really presenting more of an Assumption. Our Objection was, 'what if the ability of countries to acquire the means to be Fast or Slow depends on their present economic status, which is currently tied to geography? In that case, Fast / Slow will still be tied to geography.' The author, then, is assuming "information speed will not be tied to current economic status", which is what this answer is saying. If this answer said "takes for granted that ability to acquire high information processing speed at some time in the future will depend on factors other than those countries' present economic status", then we'd pick it.

   24%
2. B

   Too Strong2% picked this

   fails to establish that the division of the world into rich countries and poor countries is the single most important problem that will confront

   Too Strong: single most important Out of Scope: problem Beyond being way too strong an idea for us to demand out of our author, (it makes no sense to say "You're obviously wrong, since you failed to establish that what you're talking about is the #1 problem that will confront future economies"), our author isn't even saying that what he's describing is a problem. He's just talking about how things will shift, descriptively.

   2%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   ignores the possibility that, in determining a country’s future wealth, the country’s incorporation of information-processing technologies might be outweighed by

   Why this is right

   This gets at our 2nd prephrased objection, that "just because X is the single most important factor doesn't mean that determination of economic well-being will be based on X". Think of it like law schools --- maybe the single most important factor to where you go to school is "financial aid being offered", but you do still care about school ranking, geographic region, faculty members, etc. You might have two options on the table: Univ of Texas -- offering you the most financial aid USC - not offering you as much financial aid, but they're higher ranked, you'd rather live in southern California, and you love one of the professors there. It's possible, when making a decision, that if the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most important factors all point in one direction, that you'll go with that option, even if another option better satisfies the #1 concern you had. This answer is saying that even if information processing speed is #1, it might not be so pivotal that we define a nation's economic well-being based solely on that. And if there are lots of other factors that could cumulatively outweigh that #1 factor, then maybe nations wouldn't end up being economically classified as rich/poor based on Fast/Slow.

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

   64%
4. D

   Too Strong: only beneficial effects10% picked this

   provides no reason to believe that faster information processing will have only beneficial effects on countries that successfully incorporate new

   This answer is accusing the argument of having assumed that this new info tech will have only beneficial effects. This argument never made such a strong assumption. It certainly thinks that there will overall be benefit to nations who have faster information processing, but it's not relying on the idea that faster info processing is 100% good.

   10%
5. E

   Not a Flaw0% picked this

   makes no distinction between those of the world’s rich countries that are the wealthiest and those

   It's true that the author never distinguished between "super duper wealthy countries" and "pretty wealthy countries", but who cares? Why is that distinction important to the argument, or how would we criticize the author for having not made that distinction?

   0%