Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S1 · Q13 Columnist: Computer voice-recognition

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

Columnist: Computer voice-recognition technology currently cannot distinguish between homophones such as “their” and “there.” As a consequence, until voice-recognition technology is improved to recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words, voice-recognition programs will not accurately translate a computer user’s spoken words into written text.

Conclusion

Until voice recognition technology can recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic clues, voice recognition will not accurately translate text.

Evidence

Voice recognition cannot currently accurately tell the difference between homophones.

Evaluate

Think about the general form of an argument that says,

What is being assumed?

This is assuming that Action Z is necessary in order to solve Problem X. But what if there are other actions that could also solve Problem X? If that's the case, then we needn't say something as harsh as,

Goal

The author seems to be assuming that, Or to put it another way, she seems to assume that

13.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the columnist's argument?

  1. Correct

    In order for computer voice-recognition

    Why this is right

    If we negated this, it would turn into an Objection. NEGATION: there is a way for computer voice-recognition to distinguish between homophones that doesn't involve recognizing grammatical / semantic relations. Since the author's conclusion is so strongly worded, creating any room for doubt is a big objection. Formally, the author's conclusion was this ~recognizing won't grammatical and -------> accurately semantic relations translate and the premise was that can't won't distinguish ----> accurately homophones translate So this answer is giving us that 1st to 2nd link: ~recognizing can't grammatical and ? distinguish semantic relations homophones

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

    53% picked this

  2. If voice-recognition technology is improved

    Opposite Logic of Conclusion

    The author concluded "until we have X, we won't have Y". This is accusing him of thinking, "Once we have X, we will have Y". Those are not equivalent expressions. "Until we have strawberry seeds, we won't have strawberries growing in our yard" doesn't mean "Once we have seeds, we will have strawberries growing in our yard". The strawberry seeds are necessary, not sufficient.

    19% picked this

  3. Humans can distinguish between homophones

    Out of Scope: how humans distinguish

    First of all, there's no reason why the method used by computer voice recognition has to match the methods used by humans. Secondly, it feels more likely that the author thinks that humans are using grammatical / semantic relations to distinguish between homophones, so this answer sounds more like the opposite of what the author is probably thinking.

    1% picked this

  4. Unless voice-recognition technology can distinguish

    Reversed Logic

    The author is assuming "If it can't recognize grammatical/semantic stuff, then it won't be able to distinguish between homophones", whereas this answer says "if it can't distinguish between homophones, then it can't recognize grammatical/semantic stuff". We could try to negate this and see how it fails to hurt the argument, but that's much harder than looking at its conditional logic representation and asking ourselves if the author made that move. Negating this would be saying that "it's possible that voice-recognition could recognize grammatical/semantic relations without being able to distinguish between homophones." To return to an example from a previous answer choice, consider the difference between saying, "Unless we have strawberry seeds, we can't grow strawberries in our yard" vs. "Unless we can grow strawberries in our yard, we won't have strawberry seeds". That second one means something different. It's possible to have strawberry seeds but NOT be able to grow strawberries in your yard, because there might be other things also required. Similarly, it doesn't weaken the author's argument to if voice recognition CAN recognize grammatical / semantic stuff but can't distinguish between homophones, because there might be other things besides recognizing grammatical / semantic stuff that is ALSO required before the voice recognition technology can distinguish between homophones.

    27% picked this

  5. Computer programs that check the

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: what spell check can do The author is only making an argument about what is needed for voice recognition technology to distinguish between homophones. It's irrelevant to that argument whether other things currently are / aren't capable of distinguishing between homophones. It's possible that a computer that checks spelling / grammar still can't distinguish between homophones because it doesn't understand semantic relationships.

    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