Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)
Stimulus Breakdown:
One metric for comparing chess programs is given (performance with limited time). Under this metric, a faster computer is better because it can analyze more moves.
Answer Anticipation:
This Inference question is interesting in that we have an actual argument instead of just a series of facts. This doesn't much change how we're going to work, however, as we should still treat all the information (including the conclusion) as true.
For this question, since the statements overlap a bit, but there's not a clear conditional structure, I'm going to jump into the answers, rule out anything out of scope, and then pay attention to important keywords (degree, direction, etc...) to see if they match up.
Correct Answer:
(C)
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope/unwarranted comparison. The stimulus talks about two different computers with different speeds, not two different programs running on the same computer. This comparison is not backed up.
(B) Degree/out of scope. "No effect" is too strong. Also, the stimulus talks about compatibility, but it doesn't give criteria for determining what's compatible - speed may or may not have anything to do with it.
(C) Bingo. "In general" is of moderate degree, and we get strong enough language in the stimulus to back this up ("will be able to"; "will have a better"). This answer connects the second statement with the reason given in the last statement. Those two statements are linked causally with "because", telling us that the latter is the reason for the former, which is reflected here.
(D) Unwarranted comparison. The argument compares the same program running on two different computers, and this answer choice compares two different programs.
(E) Unwarranted comparison/degree. While the situation described here matches the one in the stimulus (same program; two different computers), there's an additional change that isn't discussed in the stimulus (giving extra time to the slow computer). Additionally, "an equal" chance is very specific - even if the stimulus allows us to say that additional time will make up for the slower processor, it doesn't commit these two computers to having the exact same odds of winning.
Takeaway/Pattern: When an Inference question describes a situation, make sure the correct answer fits within that situation (here, same program on two different computers).
Also, for this Most Strongly Supported question, the correct answer can be seen as the assumption that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn (the sufficient and necessary assumption).
#officialexplanation