Biologist: Some computer scientists

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: cannot be simulated13% picked this

   The functions of the human brain are governed by processes that cannot be simulated

   This argument isn't saying that "computers will never be able to simulate functions of the brain, such as intelligence". It's saying that "having all the info contained in the human genome isn't enough to simulate functions of the brain, such as intelligence." If we negate this and say, "Hey author, the functions of the brain can be simulated by a computer", it doesn't weaken. She could say, "I agree --- but the computer would need more than just the info in the human genome."

   13%
2. B

   Correct70% picked this

   The interactions of the proteins that govern the operation of the human brain are not determined by the information

   Why this is right

   On Necessary Assumption, answers that are ruling out something using words like "no / not" are very lovable. That is a common form of a correct answer. So if you felt very clueless on this problem, the smartest guess would be to avoid the answers with extreme or comparative wording and pick the answer with ruling-out wording. This answer is essentially matching our prediction that the author was assuming, "computers wouldn't be able to replicate the interactions of the proteins". The author was thinking, "Part of the info encoded in the human genome is the structures of these proteins, whose interactions govern the operation of the human brain. But the interactions aren't encoded in the genome. So if a computer only had the info in the human genome, it wouldn't be enough to achieve AI. The info in the genome would allow the computer to build these protein structures, but [she assumes] it wouldn't tell those structures how to interact in the way they do in our brain to achieve intelligence." If we negate this answer, it's saying that "the interactions are determined by the info in the human genome." This would hurt the argument because it would make it seem like the author's objection was a non-objection. The author would be arguing, "The info in the genome isn't enough for intelligence. After all, the brain needs these interactions of proteins!" And our negation would be saying, "Chill, dude. The info in the genome actually includes info that determines these interactions of proteins."

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

   70%
3. C

   Too Strong: the only way7% picked this

   The only way to create an artificial intelligence is to model it on the operation

   Our author's conclusion is only making a claim that one specific route to AI would fail. She is saying, "If you were trying to do AI with just the info in the human genome, it wouldn't be enough." Saying that isn't committing in any way to the notion that AI must come from modeling on the human brain. It's only saying that AI couldn't be modeled on the human brain if all you had was info from the genome.

   7%
4. D

   Out of Scope: too large / easily4% picked this

   The amount of information contained in the human genome is too large to be easily encapsulated

   Nothing in the argument is discussing the size of information in the human genome or the ease of encapsulation. Negating this get us, "the amount of info in the human genome could potentially be easily encapsulated by a computer program". That wouldn't hurt the argument at all, because the argument is based on a hypothetical where a computer program has encapsulated the info in the human genome. Since this argument takes place in that hypothetical world, the author hasn't made any assumptions about what is actually the case.

   4%
5. E

   Irrelevant Comparison: difficult6% picked this

   It is much more difficult to write a program that encapsulates the interactions of proteins than to write a program that encapsulates the

   Just like (D), this answer is talking about the feasibility of actually trying to encapsulate information into a computer program. This argument is only addressing a hypothetical world where we have successfully encapsulated the human genome in a computer program. It doesn't matter how hard or easy the process was. The author's only point is that this computer program, possessing only the info in the human genome, wouldn't have enough to achieve AI.

   6%