mshinners
Thanks Received: 135
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 367
Joined: March 17th, 2014
Location: New York City
 
 
 

Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by mshinners Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

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
 
yitsvi
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: December 01st, 2016
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by yitsvi Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:50 pm

Thank you for your post. I am unclear however, why Choice A is considered out of scope. Since the passage clearly states that, all else being equal, a given program that can examine more possible moves more quickly than a second program on a different computer, ultimately has a better chance of winning due to its ability to examine more possible moves, then why is it not also inferable that on the same computer, an ability to examine more moves will also provide a better chance of winning?
Most important to note is that the passage provided clear reasoning for the enhanced performance of the program on the faster computer; "this is simply because the program will be able to examine more possible moves". Therefore why can't that same ability, albeit in a different scenario (that of being on the same computer), still be a proper inference?
User avatar
 
kdaddymax
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 5
Joined: August 26th, 2016
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by kdaddymax Wed May 31, 2017 4:52 pm

I also went with A, and in my review stuck with A, though I now see why A is wrong. I don't like this question because of the weakness of C (for example, "the better the chances that program will win"... against what exactly?), and because it still seems like A is somewhat supportable, but here's why I think A is justifiably incorrect.

In the stimulus we are told about two different computers using the same chess program. We are told that this singular program (it may not seem to be talking about just one on the first pass, but trust me it is) when played on a faster computer has a better chance of beating its identical self on a slower computer. The reason it can do so (generally have a better chance of beating itself) is simply because it can examine more possible moves in the allotted time per move.

Answer choice A tells sets up a dichotomy between two different chess programs; the first (Program 1) can examine more possible moves than the second (Program 2). It says that if they were run on the same computer with the same time constraints per move, Program 1 is more likely to beat Program 2. But there's an issue here. The stimulus gave us conditions that applied when the chess program was effectively controlled. In the stimulus, we know that the only difference between the two simulations is the speed of the computer and thus how many possible moves they can examine in the given time. Here in answer choice A we lose those conditions - with two different chess programs, one might be able to examine significantly better moves, while being unable to examine more moves than its counterpart. Because of this, given what we have in the stimulus, we cannot determine that the chess program that can examine more moves will be more likely to win, because the conditions are now different. We have lost the control for the chess programs.

Answer choice C confirms what we essentially already know (and at least for me, what attracted me towards answer choice A). In the stimulus, the only thing that was different between the two simulations was how many moves the program could examine, so it would make sense that it would be better for a chess program to be able to examine more moves. That is essentially what answer choice C says: in general, the more moves a program can examine, the better [...the chances that it will win...].
 
dych
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: March 21st, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by dych Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:36 am

Hi guys,

I went with (A).
Only (C) would have made perfect sense if not for the first sentence: "One way to compare chess-playing programs."
I thought the whole passage was about comparing programs, not how one single program runs differently on different computers. Because of this I saw no problem in (A) making a comparison between two programs. Now (A) and (C) are equally strong to me.

Any help would be appreciated.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by ohthatpatrick Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:14 pm

Yeah, they set us up for that confusion.

The first sentence is about comparing program 1 to program 2.

The second sentence is comparing how program 1 does on computer 1 vs. computer 2.

The 2nd and 3rd sentence are connected, but the 1st one is kind of left out.

(That happens a lot on Inference questions, when 3 or more facts are presented. We often search for a way to "tie it all together", but sometimes they've purposefully inserted some filler in order to create trap answers)

The only thought I had in attempting to tie it all together was this:
If we're trying to compare program 1 to program 2, we better make sure we use computers of equal speed. Otherwise, the faster processing of one of the computers might make it SEEM like one program is better, when in reality it might just be the faster computer that is making it perform better.

(A) is scary because it's a universal claim. EVERY SINGLE TIME you compare two programs (under controlled settings), the one that examines more moves has a better chance?

I might have designed a terrible chess-playing program. Its only strength is that it's super fast at examining possible moves, but I forgot to build in the correct logic of how to interpret those possible moves in order to choose which one is the best one, strategically.

Thus, my program would examine more moves but would NOT have a better chance of winning.

(C) softens the tone of (A). In fact, (C) is kind of a subset of (A). If we thought (A) was true, then we'd also have to think that (C) is true.

It still seems like an obnoxiously loose answer, and way too similar to (A). But if you're thinking (as you should on Inference questions), "Weaker language is easier to support", then (C) wins out in that comparison.
 
VanessaP931
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: May 17th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q25 - One way to compare chess-playing programs is to

by VanessaP931 Mon May 27, 2019 3:40 pm

ohthatpatrick Wrote:Yeah, they set us up for that confusion.

The first sentence is about comparing program 1 to program 2.

The second sentence is comparing how program 1 does on computer 1 vs. computer 2.

The 2nd and 3rd sentence are connected, but the 1st one is kind of left out.

(That happens a lot on Inference questions, when 3 or more facts are presented. We often search for a way to "tie it all together", but sometimes they've purposefully inserted some filler in order to create trap answers)

The only thought I had in attempting to tie it all together was this:
If we're trying to compare program 1 to program 2, we better make sure we use computers of equal speed. Otherwise, the faster processing of one of the computers might make it SEEM like one program is better, when in reality it might just be the faster computer that is making it perform better.

(A) is scary because it's a universal claim. EVERY SINGLE TIME you compare two programs (under controlled settings), the one that examines more moves has a better chance?

I might have designed a terrible chess-playing program. Its only strength is that it's super fast at examining possible moves, but I forgot to build in the correct logic of how to interpret those possible moves in order to choose which one is the best one, strategically.

Thus, my program would examine more moves but would NOT have a better chance of winning.

(C) softens the tone of (A). In fact, (C) is kind of a subset of (A). If we thought (A) was true, then we'd also have to think that (C) is true.

It still seems like an obnoxiously loose answer, and way too similar to (A). But if you're thinking (as you should on Inference questions), "Weaker language is easier to support", then (C) wins out in that comparison.


Using the terms of your explanation, I believe that on (C) it is not the softer tone that makes it correct but it is because it is comparing only the program 1 with itself as in the argument. I understood that the item (C) is saying "In general, the more moves a given chess-playing program (let's say program 1) is able to examine under given time constraints per move, the better chances THAT program (program 1) will win."