Q10

[pinkdatura]

I am wondering if the reason why C is eliminated because of "most" computer design--the most is too extreme? Thx

[bbirdwell]

Absolutely. The passage doesn't support "most." It merely says that "scientists will increasingly look toward natural systems...." Perhaps they look to natural systems 4% of the time now. Increasing could mean 7%. Pretty far from most....

[jimmy902o]

I have a question about A and it might just be semantics but i feel like A reads like a mistaken reversal in LR (A-->B) does mean the same thing as (B-->A).


Saying, "some natural systems have arrived at efficient solutions to problems similar to those faced by computer scientists" is not the same as "computer scientists have arrived at solutions similar to natural systems" which i feel is much more in line with the passage, if this were a LR question i would have crossed it off and moved onto the next answer choice, why is it different here?

[esultana]

Hi,

I chose E. I thought A was a very attractive answer, but I felt E was just too close to the text to ignore. Is E wrong because it uses the word "primarily", which is too strong?

[lissethbayona]

I was between (A) and (E) on this question. I ended up going with (E).

I think (E) may be wrong because Emeagwali doesn't necessarily think that the mathematical structure of branching trees is useful PRIMARILY for designing computer systems to predict the flow of oil through oil fields. Although the mathematical structure of branching trees was useful to Emeagwali in this way, there is no where in the passage that indicates that he thought it was useful MAINLY for this particular purpose as opposed to others.

On the other hand, (A) is a better answer because it is supported by lines 36-48, which discusses a specific situation where Emeagwali found a natural system (branching structures of trees) that solved problems that are analogous to the tech problems computer scientists face (maximizing the amount of sunlight and quantity of water/sap delivered is analogous to gathering and broadcasting the largest quantity of messages to processing points in the shortest time).

Can someone please weigh in on whether my reasoning/support is on the right path here?

[ohthatpatrick]

Your best friend on RC questions that say "inferred / implies / suggests / most likely to agree" is extreme language.

We need the safest, most provable answer.

The wrong answers are usually broken because of some wording that is either
- too strong (extreme)
- makes a comparison we never made
- brings up something new (out of scope)

Just glancing at these five answers (as I would typically do when taking my first pass), I see

(A) Some
(B) too complicated for more than a few
(C) most
(D) will eventually be (predicts the future)
(E) primarily

By far, (A) is the weakest, safest claim, so I would start there (even if it weren't the first answer choice) to see if I can support it.

Does Emeagwali think we can use natural solutions to help with technological problems? Yeah, that's basically the main point of the passage! The way trees try to maximize sunlight and sap to all their branches was analogous to the way E was trying to maximize the effectiveness of a parallel network of computers (without having them interfere with each other).

(B) this is contradicted by the fact that E is working on a computer that would predict weather a century in advance.

(C) "most" is too extreme

(D) this predicts the future in a way we never talked about. It also sounds counterinuitive. Why would it be practical to use massively parallel computers for relatively mundane tasks? The passage only discusses massively parallel computers as solutions for incredibly complex problems.

(E) "primarily" is too extreme

Hope this helps.