Q14 - The mathematics of...

[patrice.antoine]

I narrowed down to A and B and chose the incorrect one. Please explain the difference between these two answer choices. Thank you!

[a3friedm]

(B) is a reversal. We need correct to be the necessary condition, we know this from "certain scientists have concluded there us good eveidence complexity theory is correct"

So we need if x, then correct.

(A) gives us that

(B) gives us, if correct then x

Make sense?

[slimz89]

How does (A)'s principle justify if its necessary condition is "probably correct" and the passage states it is correct?
Forget it. I just realized that the passage never said it is correct, rather there is good evidence that it is correct. In other words that is hasn't been established yet, but like (B) suggests it is probably correct.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, slimz89! I'm glad you noticed that the conclusion was merely that there was 'good evidence' for complexity!

There's also an additional issue worth discussing here: this is a Principle (support) question type. The correct answers on these questions often take the form of a sufficient assumption, and in so doing, fully guarantee the conclusion. But they aren't required to be sufficient assumptions - they are only required to be strengtheners. Never eliminate an answer choice on Principle (support) if it strengthens, but does not fully guarantee, the conclusion!

In this case, the correct answer is in the form of a sufficient assumption, but even if the conclusion were more strongly worded, it would serve as a valid strengthener. Just something you should keep in mind!

While we're here, let's run a basic breakdown of this question from the top:

PREMISE: Computerized complexity models evolve like the real life versions.
CONCLUSION: Good evidence that complexity is correct.

As I mentioned above, Principle (support) answers are often dressed as Sufficient Assumptions, and that's what's going on here: a quick glance at the answer choices reveals that all of them are if/then statements! The classic format will be a statement of "If (evidence), then (conclusion)", and (A) serves it right up: if a model based on a theory behaves like real life, then the theory is probably right!


The Unsupporting Cast
(B) As a3friedm notes, this is a reversal: If (conclusion), then (premise). That doesn't help!
(C) computers will discover the math? Skynet, what?
(D) This conditional isn't actually tripped in the evidence. We know that these models evolve *much* like, but that doesn't mean they evolve *exactly* like them. And even if they did, this conditional has a result that the computer models themselves must be complex. Which is great, but doesn't tell me anything about whether complexity is correct for real life.
(E) Mathematical errors? Theories are incorrect? This is way off base.


I hope this helps clear up a few things!