PT152 S4 Q24 ExplanationTaken as a whole, the computers

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Too Strong28% picked this

   equates the complexity of an entity with the intelligence of

   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."

   28%
2. B

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that other technologies may simulate human intelligence before the

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope: analogous information19% picked this

   draws a dubious analogy between the information that is processed by the human brain and the information that

   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".

   19%
4. D

   Correct50% picked this

   fails to give an indication of why the characteristics it focuses on are sufficient for the eventual

   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%
5. E

   Out of Scope: interested2% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the people administering the Internet are interested in developing a

   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.

   2%