Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q25 One way to compare chess-playing

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

One way to compare chess-playing programs is to compare how they perform with fixed time limits per move.

Statements

One way to compare chess-playing programs is to compare how they do with fixed time limits per move.

If you take a given chess-playing program, give it fixed time limits per move, and then watch it on two different compatible computers, the program will have a better chance of winning (the chess game it's playing) on the faster computer.

causal (this is simply because) The faster computer wins because on that computer the program is able to examine more possible moves in the fixed time per move.

Evaluate

This paragraph is badly written, probably intentionally. The very first sentence is talking about comparing chess program A to chess program B. But the rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with that. The rest of the paragraph is talking about comparing how chess program A does on computer X vs. computer Y.

The one piece of signature Inference language (Conditional / Causal / Pivot / Math-y) that sticks out is the Causal Difference-Maker of "this is because". The faster computer can examine more moves and the faster computer has a better chance of winning. One difference explains the other difference.

The test-writers want us to see that .

Goal

Look for an answer potentially reinforcing this causal connection between "examining more possible moves" and "better chance of winning", but ultimately we'll pick whichever answer we can best support.

25.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

  1. If one chess-playing program can

    Too Strong: will Unknown Comparison

    While this answer seems reasonable, since it's reinforcing the "more moves examined = better chance of winning" connection, we don't know how to compare these two different programs. It's not like the passage told us that the only thing that affects chance of winning is number of possible moves examined in the time constraint. Two different chess-playing programs have been designed by two different (groups of) computer programmers. We have no idea what other aspects of designing a chess program are important. Maybe Eddie's chess program can consider more possible moves than Sharon's chess program, but Eddie didn't give good instructions to his chess-playing algorithm for what to make of all those possible moves considered. He might have better raw materials (more data for the computer to consider when selecting the next move) but less wisdom in terms of selecting the best move on the basis of that richer data. Since the program that considers more possible moves might be terrible when it comes to strategically picking the best of those possible moves, it might still be less likely to win than the other chess program. The correct answer is pretty similar to this one, but the correct answer hedges its prediction, making it safer language. It says "in general, the program considering more moves will have a better chance". This answer says, "the program considering more moves will have a better chance".

    18% picked this

  2. How fast a given computer

    Too Strong: has no effect

    We have no support for this strong claim. There could easily be older computers with slow processing speeds that are too slow for certain chess programs to run on them. The author even seemed to allow for this possibility by saying, "Given any two computers with which a chess-playing program is compatible", implying that there may be some computers with which a given chess-playing program is not compatible.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    In general, the more moves

    Why this is right

    This is reinforcing the Causal Difference-Maker we were given in the final sentence. When we test a given chess program on two different computers, the program on the faster computer is more likely to win simply because it can examine more possible moves in the allotted time. That allows us to say that, "in general (which is kind of like saying all other things being equal), more moves = better chance of winning". This generalization definitely ignores other potentially meaningful variables that would exist if one chess program were playing a different one, but it softened its prediction by saying "in general", so it will tolerate exceptions to this rule.

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

    55% picked this

  4. If two different chess-playing programs

    Unknown Comparison Too Strong: will

    We weren't really given any way to judge a comparison between two different chess-playing programs. In this head-to-head between program A and program B, we can say that program B is running on the faster computer. Does that guarantee that program B will consider more possible moves in the allotted time? No, because we don't know about design differences between program A and program B. Perhaps program B was written with really inefficient coding, so it takes more processing time/energy for B to consider a possible move than it does for A to consider a move. Since the design of the program could have such a difference on the performance efficiency of the program, we can't automatically say that any chess program on a faster program will consider more moves than any chess program on a slower computer.

    23% picked this

  5. If a chess-playing program is

    Too Strong: equal

    There probably is some break even point, where you offset the superior computer speed of one computer with a smaller time limit per move, so that Program A is able to calculate the same number of possible moves whether it gets 5 seconds on the slower computer or 4 seconds on the faster computer. But the ratio of time limits would have to match the inverse ratio of computer processing speeds. This answer choice is not dialing in the mathematical specificity it would take to end up with an equal (i.e. identical) chance of winning. It's simply saying, "if you give the program on the slower computer more time to examine possible moves, it'll be equal chance". Maybe if we give it an extra 0.5 seconds it's not enough extra time to consider an equal number of possible moves. Maybe if we give it an extra 20 seconds, then the program on the slower computer is now considering way more possible moves.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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