Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q24 Taken as a whole, the computers

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

Taken as a whole, the computers that constitute the Internet form a complex, densely interconnected collection that transmits information like the neurons that form the human brain.

Conclusion

The Internet will one day gain a humanlike intelligence.

Evidence

The network of computers that constitute the Internet form a complex, densely interconnected assemblage that transmits information like the neurons in a human brain.

And like a developing human brain, the Internet is growing at millions of points.

Evaluate

Just because things share a couple features doesn't mean we get to automatically assume they share some other feature.

Maybe the Internet bears some similarities to to a human brain, but there might be certain necessary ingredients for humanlike intelligence that the Internet does not and will never have.

Goal

Look for an answer objecting that the analogy might break down once we get to the issue of possessing intelligence, or an answer describing the author's illicit move, .

24.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. equates the complexity of an

    Too Strong

    The author does not say "since X and Y are equally complex, X and Y should be equally intelligent". That's what this answer choice accuses the author of doing. The author is doing something softer and subtler -- "because X is a complex information transmitting collection, just as the neurons in the human brain are, and because X is growing at a million points just as a developing brain does, then one day X will have something resembling human intelligence."

    29% picked this

  2. fails to consider the possibility

    Not an Objection

    This answer could only hurt the author if she had promised that the Internet will be the first thing to someday gain a humanlike intelligence. She didn't. She doesn't have a position on whether it'll be the next thing that does, the 3rd thing that does, the 20th thing that does, etc.

    1% picked this

  3. draws a dubious analogy between

    Out of Scope: analogous information

    This answer is meant to attract us since the argument was definitely an argument by analogy. But the author never discusses the type of information processed by the brain / by the Internet. She only discusses the method by which information is transmitted by each. The analogy was saying "since both things transmit information through a dense interconnected network and since both things developed by growing at millions of points, they will both end up with the property of intelligence". We could pretty much fix this answer by saying, "draws a dubious analogy between the 'intelligence' that the Internet might possess and the intelligence that the human brain possesses".

    18% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to give an indication

    Why this is right

    Does the author indicate why "transmitting info through dense interconnection + growing at a million different nodes" proves that the Internet will one day be intelligent? No. Is that a logical problem? Yes. This is just saying that the author's evidence does not appear to prove the conclusion, and the author gives us no reason to think we should consider the evidence to be dispositive of the conclusion. We might be almost disappointed by an answer that makes a humdrum complaint like, "fails to produce evidence that is sufficient to prove the conclusion" because that generic complaint is true of every flawed argument, but that doesn't make it incorrect to point that out. If we read it less formally for matching and more conversationally, it's supposed to just sound like the objection of, "Why should we believe that dense network of info transmission + growing at million points is enough to produce intelligence? What if other stuff is needed too?"

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

    50% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope: interested

    The author never discusses the people administering the Internet, so we can't accuse her of assuming anything about them. If we negated this supposed assumption would it weaken? The people administering the Internet are not interested in developing a system with humanlike intelligence. That doesn't weaken. The people who developed nuclear fission weren't interested in developing an atomic bomb that could be dropped on Japan, but the latter still tragically happened. (Creationists, put on your earmuffs) ... There's no administrator interested in making a human that has intelligence, but it nonetheless happens.

    1% 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