Q24 - Biologist: Some computer scientists imagine

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Rephrased conclusion: Making artificial intelligence requires more than a computer holding the human genome.
Premise: The genome encodes proteins, which affect the brain.

Answer Anticipation:
Lots of science! Here, the conclusion states that more than the genome is needed. The author thinks this because the genome encodes the structures of the proteins, but the brain is governed by interactions. In order to make this argument work, we need to know that these interactions are also not governed by the genome. If they are, the argument falls apart.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument revolves around getting a computer to simulate a human brain; this answer says that the solution, if one exists, lies elsewhere.

(B) Exactly. The argument brings up protein structure and interactions. It states the structure is defined by the genome. To state that more than the genome is needed, the author needs to establish that the interactions aren't governed by the genome. If we negate this answer and the interactions are governed by the genome, the conclusion falls apart.

(C) Reversal. This answer treats modelling on the human brain as necessary. The argument only deals in whether or not it's sufficient, i.e., one way of doing it.

(D) Out of scope. It doesn't matter to the argument how easily or hard it would be; just whether or not it's feasible.

(E) Out of scope, for the same reason as (D) - the argument doesn't care about difficulty, just possibility.

Takeaway/Pattern: Always rephrase conclusions like this! Also, negation test FTW.

#officialexplanation

[DPCTE4325]

Hey Patrick!

Would you approach this problem using the "new guy" method? Because I noticed that there is a new guy "interactions of proteins" but it's in the premise and not the conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure. "New Guy" is most dependable when it comes to Sufficient Assumption, because a new term in the conclusion almost by definition must be defined by the correct answer (and linked to something we talked about in the premise).

For a Necessary Assumption argument, if there's only one premise, we can certainly assume that the most likely answer choice would be to take something mentioned in that one and only premise and relate it to something in the conclusion.

For example, if I argued
"Say what you will about Bob, but he cannot be our bowling captain. After all, he's left handed."

"Bowling captain" is the new guy in the conclusion, but we'd fully expect the answer to connect this 'loner' in the premise [left handed] to the concept we're trying to prove [can't be captain].

If the example argument had already defined something about bowling captain, then we'd expect the assumption to take the lone premise and connect it to that.

For example, if I argued
"Some people say that all it would take for Bob to be our bowling captain is to submit his resume of past scores to the league office. But they are mistaken. In order to be bowling captain, you need to have scored at least two consecutive games over 200."

What's the assumption?
(A) Bob's resume of past scores would not show at least two consecutive games over 200.

The long and short of it is .... there's no such thing as "new guy" for the premise in the sense that we have a responsibility to prove/support/use the words in the Conclusion, but we don't have the same responsibility to use every New Guy we might see in the premises.

However -- your instinct still makes sense. If there's only one premise, then it clearly needs to be used in the reasoning, so you could focus on a New Guy in that one lone premise and think, "how were they thinking that [this idea] would be relevant to their conclusion?"