Q3

[maryadkins]

3. (E)
Question Type: Inference
We are looking for an inference that both authors would agree on. We know they agree that this divide-and-conquer computing method is best to solve big problems. (E) takes Author B’s term"”parallel"”and applies it to Author A’s example"”climate trends. Based on the passages, we can infer from Author A’s description of climate trend modeling that Author B would agree it’s best suited for parallel computing. We can also infer from the definitions of the computing systems that Author A would agree that "parallel" computing is optimal, even if he or she doesn’t use that term.

(A) is a contradiction. Both authors agree that the massive parallel computing systems are optimal, and the "brute force" approach offered by Author A"”meaning exploration of all possible values (13-14)"”is an approach that these systems are able to take.
(B) also contradicts both authors’ viewpoints"”they are both optimistic about computers for large-scale problems. (23-28, 56-58.)
(C) is both half-scope and an incorrect degree. Author B says nothing about the feasibility being linked to public interest, and Author A does not go so far as to say it’s not feasible"”only that when it has worked, it has garnered sufficient interest. (31-32.)
(D) is out of scope. The passages are not about solving relatively simple problems; they’re about complex computations.

[jpchris3]

I still don't understand why (D) is wrong. Don't lines 17-21 support it for Passage A ("for each of only nine variables") ?

I guess my problem with (E) was that Passage B never mentioned climate trends...

Thanks

[maryadkins]

"Only nine variables" (which means over 2 million simulations... so doesn't sound relatively simple) is used to describe simulations that are "highly complex" (see line 12). The word "only" doesn't make this paragraph about simple problems. It's about complex problems (again, see the set up at line 12).

Fair point on (E), but this is also why we work wrong to right. (E) requires an inference, but it is the most provable one to make.

[agersh144]

What is wrong with A I don't see why it is a contradiction - could someone please explain?

[dmt137]

I am also confused as to why A is incorrect. I got the sense that "brute force" had a negative connotation in the passage...

[maryadkins]

(A) pits massive parallel computing against brute force. It says they DON'T resort to it. But where "brute force" is mentioned, in line 13 of Passage A, we're told there is "no alternative to brute force." The passage goes on to say that this method "requires very large number of calculations..." (line 15). The author of Passage A thinks brute force is inevitable, not optional, as Answer Choice (A) suggests.

[cwolfington]

How can E be correct if Passage B makes no reference to large-scale climate trends?

[ohthatpatrick]

Answers don't have to be PROVABLE to be the credited response. They just have to have the most support.

On modern RC sections, they are taking more and more liberties with this idea. You often see correct answers now have a definite problem (some aspect of it goes beyond what we know from the passage), but it still has more support than the other choices.

Passage B doesn't mention large-scale climate trends, but it starts out by saying that "many problems in nature are naturally 'parallel'."

The last paragraph of B says that "we're shifting from sequential computing to massive parallel computing" because such computing allows us to solve computation-intensive problems.

The author of B further says that "since many computation-intensive problems are inherently parallel, it only makes sense to use a computing model that exploits that parallelism."

So if you think it's reasonable that the author of B would consider "predicting large scale climate trends" a computation-intensive problem, or an inherently parallel 'problem in nature', then there's good support for the notion that the author of B would think that "it only makes sense" to use massive parallel computing for that task.

Again, remember that some support is better than no support

(A) contradicted, they DO use brute force
(B) these authors are more likely to think parallel computing COULD simulate an insect colony.
(C) no support for the pessimism of "not feasible" in psg B.
(D) no discussion of current computers simulating simple problems.

Hope this helps

[taichi69]

I have several problems with E, I am hoping that someone can explain. The author of passage B makes no mention of climate change, so how can we presume he/she would believe that parallel computing would be the best solution? I may think a Ford Mustang is a superior car to the Ford Escort in general, but I may also think the Escort is a better car for Europe, because of the smaller roads.

The second problem I have with E is that it says that parallel computing is the "best means" for simulating large-scale climate trends. It maybe better than the brute force method, but we can't assume that the authors of both passages believe it is the best method. Best vs better.

[rsmithpt267]

I agree with the above post. I ultimately chose A over E because of the "Best" in E. I see why A is wrong, but in a timed test situation, I have trouble seeing why E is correct. How can we pick an answer that says "Best" when only 2 options talked about- parallel computing systems and non parallel? Isn't there a flaw in here that this answer does not consider alternative explanations that may be BEST?