Q12

[pinkdatura]

I am wondering why A is a good answer?
Is it addressing "increasingly look to nature..." so we need to concede there's still space to make progress?
Thx

[bbirdwell]

That's pretty much it. A disciplined process of elimination will get you a correct answer on a question like this. It's more about how wrong the other 4 are than how right this one is, as is often the case on reading comp...

[zainrizvi]

Basically the prediction is that computer scientists in the future will look to nature more for solutions to technical problems.

(A) Shows that right now they aren't really looking at nature yet; they had a very limited awareness. This strengthens the argument because it excludes the possibility that they were already looking at nature for solutions. Hence it shows that they can increasingly look at nature now (i.e avoids what if they were already looking at nature a lot)

(B) Global weather still has some unknown patterns - but just because Emeagwali is looking for solutions through nature doesn't mean that anyone else will.

(C) The success of prediction of natural phenomenon is irrelevant. The prediction is will people look increasingly looking at nature for solutions.

(D) Also basically irrelevant to the prediction. This could be construed as somewhat of a strengthener if one is to assume that these principles have widespread applicability - thus, that might add an advantage to why people will want to use it more. But this is really weak because of the use of "some", plus it doesn't seem very direct.

(E) It does not add anything to the prediction of natural solutions increasing. It just says "mathematical principles" - what if these were not related to nature at all?



Hopefully someone can confirm the reasoning above?

[noah]

Strong write-up!

I've made some edits below - though I agree with everything you say. I just tried to make the wrong-answer categories clearer. I thought it was faster to note that (B) is out of scope.

Basically the prediction is that computer scientists in the future will look to nature more for solutions to technical problems.

(A) shows that right now they aren't really looking at nature yet; they had a very limited awareness. This strengthens the prediction because it excludes the possibility that they were already looking at nature for solutions. Hence it shows that they can increasingly look at nature now (i.e avoids what if they were already looking at nature a lot)

(B) is out of scope - the prediction is not about using computers to predict weather (though that was mentioned earlier).

(C) is out of scope. The nature of the success of predictions of natural phenomenon is irrelevant. The prediction is will people look increasingly looking at nature for solutions.

(D) is also irrelevant to the prediction. This could be construed as somewhat of a strengthener if one were to assume that these principles have widespread applicability - thus, that might add an advantage to why people will want to use it more. But this is really weak because of the use of "some", plus it doesn't seem very direct.

(E) is out of scope. Are "mathematical principles" related to nature at all?



Hopefully someone can confirm the reasoning above?

[keonheecho]

I'm confused... for (A), why would it matter whether they were looking at natural processes a little or a lot? Emeagwali's prediction is that "computer scientists will INCREASINGLY look to nature...." so does it really matter how much they are looking to nature now?

This type of reasoning seems to go against what we would encounter on strengthen logical reasoning questions...I feel like if this were a conclusion on a logical reasoning question, this would be an incorrect answer. Please help! thank you!

[andrewgong01]

I'm confused... for (A), why would it matter whether they were looking at natural processes a little or a lot? Emeagwali's prediction is that "computer scientists will INCREASINGLY look to nature...." so does it really matter how much they are looking to nature now?

This type of reasoning seems to go against what we would encounter on strengthen logical reasoning questions...I feel like if this were a conclusion on a logical reasoning question, this would be an incorrect answer. Please help! thank you!

I was satisfied with "A" from the earlier comments until I read this. However, if anyone is still confused, I think after re-reading the section, the next sentence calls the move to appealing to nature for inspirations as a "paradigm shift" so it probably means it is safe to assume that the appealing to nature in computers has not begun yet. If it has already started, it wouldn't make sense for Philip to call this a "shift" .. Moreover, on Line 7 we know that Philip achieved great breakthroughs in technology and one of the breakthrough was using nature. Taken as a whole, the overall message suggests that appealing to nature is something "new"; hence, Choice "A" does plug the gap in saying right now no one currently appeals to nature.

I know similar Weaken RC Questions have asked like What will weaken the claim the most where the claim is "X is a new innovative method" and the credited response is something saying Group Y has been using that method 100 years already. So this question reverses the similar logic for Weaken question in now plugging the gap that no one else uses nature.