Q6 - In any field, experience is

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello..
I picked (A) for this question but I would really appreciate if someone could go through this argument with me. I had no clue what the missing link was. I thought the conclusion was the middle sentence which is basically that computerized expert systems cannot be as good as human experts because human experts have a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation. And basically computers dont have this. Im not even sure if I have the right conclusion, so any help would be great.. I would really like some clarification on (A) and (B)!! Thanks!!

[timmydoeslsat]

The argument can be seen like this:

Evidence

If you are an expert in any field, you must have experience.

Experience gives a person a big arsenal of model situations in which they can use those to respond to new situations quickly.

Computers have the ability to store a lot of information, but the human experts that have experienced thousands of situations contain knowledge that is not stored as rules and facts in their brain.

Conclusion

Computerized expert systems cannot be as good as human experts.


As we know, that conclusion does not necessarily follow since it is a necessary assumption question.

The argument is essentially this:

Experts have this vast knowledge in their brains about 1000s of situations and computers do not. Therefore, computers cannot be as good as humans.

Answer choices:

A) Even if they can show more originality in responding to a situation than was built by designers, the conclusion is about how computers cannot be as good as humans because of all the knowledge the humans have and computers do not. The computers may be able to show more originality and this would not harm the argument. The author would say that it is the knowledge the experts have that the computers do not that makes the conclusion follow.

B) The reason this is correct is because if it was the case that the knowledge of human experts can be rendered into the type of information that computer can store, then the conclusion falls apart because it severs how the arguer got to the conclusion.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Timmy!
I definitely need to go ahead and make a vocab book because I realized that I picked A because of the word "originality" and The reaaon was because I thought "intuitive" meant original thinking. Thank you so much for clarifying this one for me. It makes total sense now. Nowhere in the argument does the author talk about "originality". Definitely out of scope answer.

[bbirdwell]

Vocab book is probably not a bad idea!

Simply noticing those word differences is a big help. Whenever we have a situation where a premise says "intuitive," and a conclusion or answer says "original," we must note that distinction and avoid glossing over it. Assumptions are all about words. The LSAT is a very *literal* environment!

[lissethbayona]

I'm having a hard time understanding why C is wrong. I was thrown off by the last bit of information in the stimulus: "the knowledge of experts is not stored within the brains of computers in the form of rules and facts."

After another close look I think C is wrong because the argument says "rules and facts" in a way that is meant to convey that it is one way information is stored in computers. It was not meant to connect to experts in any way. If we negate C, "the info experts rely on when responding to new situations can't be expressed in rules and facts" it wouldn't weaken the argument since it never says that information can only be stored in computers as rules and facts. So I guess in a way C is too specific. We don't need experts to rely on knowledge that can be stored as "rules and facts" we need experts' knowledge to be able to be stored in computers, period. (Which is correctly expressed in B)

Is this correct reasoning for the elimination of C? Any input would be great!

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm having a hard time understanding why C is wrong. I was thrown off by the last bit of information in the stimulus: "the knowledge of experts is not stored within the brains of computers in the form of rules and facts."

After another close look I think C is wrong because the argument says "rules and facts" in a way that is meant to convey that it is one way information is stored in computers. It was not meant to connect to experts in any way. If we negate C, "the info experts rely on when responding to new situations can't be expressed in rules and facts" it wouldn't weaken the argument since it never says that information can only be stored in computers as rules and facts. So I guess in a way C is too specific. We don't need experts to rely on knowledge that can be stored as "rules and facts" we need experts' knowledge to be able to be stored in computers, period. (Which is correctly expressed in B)

Is this correct reasoning for the elimination of C? Any input would be great!

(C) is wrong because we do not care HOW the information is stored. We only care about the importance of that information, a.k.a the importance of experience.

The argument says, because of their lack of ability to store experience, computers are not as good and "cannot be" as good (they NEVER can be as good). (B) is correct because it expresses the assumption that computers, in fact, will not be able to store such information.

[jenniferreisig]

I don't understand how B is a required assumption. I can see how the other answers are wrong but can't understand how B is right. My reasoning is that regardless of how humans store situations in their brains their ability to respond intuitively from experience is what makes them better than computers. I see the main premise of the argument to be this point, that humans have the ability to reason and make immediate response from an arsenal of experience. The fact that the human brain doesn't store information like a computer seemed more like an added premise offering support to the first premise by expressing that computers can't reason from experience because they only store information as rules and facts. Who cares how humans store information? How they process it is what matters.

Can someone help explain this to me? Thank you.

[mattFbuelow]

I had the same issue where I chose A with B as a contender.
I understood the conclusion to be: "...for this reason computerized expert systems cannot be as good as human experts."
Now, I also took "this reason" to be referring to the statement, "through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation."
I think this is what trips up most people on this question because this statement about a repertory of model situations allowing an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation seems to be the crux of the conclusion. This was what led me to see answer A as making what I thought was a small assumption in originality=intuitive response.
I see now that we cant make that assumption. However, if what I have above is indeed the crux of the conclusion (repertory.. that allows an immediate, intuitive response...), I still don't see how B can be the correct answer. I'm thinking even if B were true, it wouldnt hurt the argument because it still doesnt show it "allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation".
Can anyone please help on this?

[mattFbuelow]

Okay so thinking more on why B is correct if the crux of the conclusion is referring to "...a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation.", the actual definition of intuition is direct perception of truth, fact, etc independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension so if we assume computers are capable of doing this in making "...an immediate intuitive response to a new situation.", then I can understand answer B being correct.
Is this reasoning correct?

[MeenaV936]

Why is E wrong? Isn't it saying humans are better because they're relying on intuition when computers can't?

[CindyL522]

Why is E wrong? Isn't it saying humans are better because they're relying on intuition when computers can't?

The author says: Through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation. E is wrong because E states that a repertory of model is formed based on intuition rather than experience.

[Laura Damone]

Nailed it, Cindy!