PT150 S3 Q1 ExplanationIn constructing a self-driving robotic car

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Too Strong: requires expertise0% picked this

   constructing a self-driving robotic car requires expertise in

   We want something like, "maybe it could be helpful for engineers working on self-driving robotic cars to look into the navigation principles that fish schools use". We don't want an extreme (and absurd sounding) claim like, "You cannot construct a self-driving robotic car without expertise in fish biology!" We're not saying we need to know everything about fish biology, just these navigational principles. And we're not saying we need these navigational principles, just that they might be useful.

   0%
2. B

   Too Strong: best / same0% picked this

   the best drivers use the same navigational principles that fish use

   Again, we have very clear and present danger with this toxic, extreme wording. We were never talking about the best drivers, and the idea that they use navigational principles that are identical to what fish use goes against common sense. This paragraph is more about the flow of many drivers / many fish, not about the individual excellence of great drivers.

   0%
3. C

   Too Strong: always2% picked this

   it is always advisable for engineers facing design challenges to look to the natural world for guidance

   Once again, there's a flaming hot word telling us to look elsewhere. This paragraph only talks about the natural world providing some guidance when it comes to self-driving cars. We have no idea whether the natural world frequently / usually / always provides guidance in addressing a design challenge. If this answer is changed to "it is sometimes advisable", we would definitely consider it.

   2%
4. D

   Correct95% picked this

   studying the principles fish use to navigate in schools could help engineers to design a self-driving robotic car

   Why this is right

   This is essentially what we predicted. It doesn't go overboard with its language, saying only that "studying the navigation principles could / may / might help engineers solve their traffic problems". This carries over a similarity from the fish analogy. Both fish and robotic cars are trying to solve similar problems. Fish solve it using these navigational principles. Thus, robotic cars might be able to also solve it using these navigational principles.

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

   95%
5. E

   Unknown Comparison: robotic vs. human3% picked this

   a self-driving robotic car using the navigational principles that fish use in schools would be better than a human-driven car

   We don't have the means to compare the crash/congestion rate of robot cars to human cars. Since we think that the fish's navigational principles could be useful, we could probably say that "a self-driving robotic car using the navigational principles that fish use in schools might be better than one that doesn't use such principles at avoiding crashes and congestion". But comparing a robot's ability to avoid crashes and traffic to a human's is beyond the scope of anything we talked about.

   3%