Some have argued that once it becomes necessary for us to think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires in order to understand how they function, we can rightly say that computers have beliefs and desires.
Opposing Point (some have argued)
Once it becomes necessary for us to think about computers in terms of beliefs and desires in order to understand how they function, we can rightly say that computers have beliefs and desires.
Evidence (however)
We already need to think about what computers believe and desire in order to understand how they function.
Intermediate Conclusion (thus)
The suggested criterion for ascribing beliefs and desires to computers implies that the computers that exist now have beliefs and desires.
Main Conclusion (so)
The suggested criterion is obviously flawed.
Evaluate
The claim in question is part of the Intermediate Conclusion. We know this claim to be a conclusion because of the word thus, and we know it's intermediate because the next sentence begins with the conclusion indicator word so. Since the claim in question is just one part of the intermediate conclusion, we should expect the correct answer to get more granular and describe how that claim works. That's unfortunate in a Role question, but it's to be expected in the Gauntlet where the hardest questions lie!
The opposing point is establishes a criterion that, once met, means we can say that computers have beliefs and desires. The evidence is that we've already met that criterion. The intermediate conclusion is that, taken together, the opposing point and the evidence would mean that computers today have beliefs and desires. From this, the author derives their main conclusion: that criterion is obviously bogus. Thus, this argument has classic Rebuttal archetype known as the Reduction to the Absurd: If X was true, it would imply Y. But Y isn't true. So X isn't true either.
Goal
Look for an answer that acknowledges the Rebuttal and the author's assumption that computers today do not have beliefs and desires.