Q12 - If future improvements to computer simulations

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: In the future, if computers can get as much reliable data as actual test crashes can, then we'll use fewer actual test crashes.
Evidence: The cost of the computer simulation is much lower than that of actual test crashes.

Answer Anticipation:
This is an argument based on a comparison between computer-simulated test crashes and actual test crashes.

We're saying, if they give us the same amount of reliable info and cost less to design/run, then we'll use computer simulations more and more."

How would we argue with that?

Maybe there is some disadvantage of computer simulations or advantage of actual test crashes that we haven't heard about, that might tip the scales back towards actual crashes. Also, since this is set in the future, maybe something else will have changed that will cause us to favor actual tests.

Since this is Strengthen, we either want more evidence that computer simulations will be the way of the future or we want to Rule Out a possible objection that would have helped actual tests stay relevant for longer.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes, this sounds good. It's ruling out a possible objection. If actual test crashes provided lots of OTHER information, then that could have been the reason we would continue doing actual test crashes. If we're basically just getting the stuff we can otherwise get form computers, we're more likely to use the cheaper computers.

(B) We don't have to worry about whether the IF condition is likely to come true or will even EVER come true. We're only judging the logic of, "In a hypothetical world where it WAS true, would we use computer simulations more?"

(C) We're not concerned with whether we'll have safer cars. We're only discussing how manufacturers will conduct their tests: by computer or with actual cars.

(D) This has no effect, since it doesn't help distinguish between computer/actual testing. It sounds like the overall cost is going down, but the premise would still remain that computer testing is CHEAPER than actual testing.

(E) This helps somewhat, but we're not analyzing whether computer simulations CAN be successful. We're wondering if, in a world where they are EQUALLY successful at measuring safety features, would we use them more frequently and actual tests less frequently.

Takeaway/Pattern: If we wanted to save actual tests, we'd have to bring up something EXTRA they provide for us that would merit spending the extra money on them, compared to what we spend and what we get for computer simulations.

The IF condition of the argument only mentions that computers would be equally effective at getting info about safety features. However, if actual tests were better at deriving OTHER TYPES of info, we might still consider actual tests worth doing.

(A) cuts against that objection.

#officialexplanation

[RayH73]

Hi,
but in regards to B, doesn't it tell us more than just that future improvements would happen, but that when they happen, it will have more reliable information than actual tests? Doesn't this make it more likely that the computer simulations would replace actual tests?

[JorgeL203]

Bump. Can someone please explain why B is incorrect?

[SamM102]

I see B being wrong for two, related reasons:

The argument, since it starts with If, signals that the world may or may not actually happen. It's a fantasy hypothetical world that may or may not exist so to strengthen the argument, it's not effective to claim that that world will or is likely to happen. Just because it will happen does not mean the argument about that world is strengthened. B simply tells us that the hypothetical world will likely happen in the next 20 years, but doesn't strengthen the argument. Answer choices that try to make the hypothetical world a reality don't strengthen.

Slight term shift that gave me pause. The argument says that if computer sims offer as much reliable info as actual crashes. B touts "greater amount" of info...but all we need is the same amount of info. So, again, we know the world is triggered. Just because the world is or is or is likely to be triggered does not strengthen the argument, we need commentary on what can be applied to that world.

[Misti Duvall]

I see B being wrong for two, related reasons:

The argument, since it starts with If, signals that the world may or may not actually happen. It's a fantasy hypothetical world that may or may not exist so to strengthen the argument, it's not effective to claim that that world will or is likely to happen. Just because it will happen does not mean the argument about that world is strengthened. B simply tells us that the hypothetical world will likely happen in the next 20 years, but doesn't strengthen the argument. Answer choices that try to make the hypothetical world a reality don't strengthen.

Slight term shift that gave me pause. The argument says that if computer sims offer as much reliable info as actual crashes. B touts "greater amount" of info...but all we need is the same amount of info. So, again, we know the world is triggered. Just because the world is or is or is likely to be triggered does not strengthen the argument, we need commentary on what can be applied to that world.

Good explanation!