Reading Comprehension

Please take a look at this passage and help answer the question. It seemed very tough and I couldn't still understand even after reading the explanation.

A quantum computer operates on a principle similar to
that of a classical computer: an array of "switches" are each
either "on" or "off." How then could a quantum computer
perform a complex calculation in seconds when a classical
(5) computer would take years to solve the same problem?
The answer lies in the bizarre physics of the subatomic world
as defined by quantum mechanics, in which an atom may exist
in a state of superposition, in which, in effect, it exists in two
states at once. Thus, the "switch" in a quantum computer,
(10) unlike the electronic switch in a classical computer, is not just
"on" or "off" but could also be both at the same time.
Some quantum computers use the charge of electrons in a
helium atom as the computational "switch." Others use
trapped ions. But the most "typical" quantum computer
(15) makes use of the spin state of the electron in a hydrogen
atom. A spin-based quantum computer would consist of a
number of "contained" hydrogen atoms as well as the means
of control -- in other words, the device that would contain
the atom, read its spin as either "spin up" or "spin down,"
(20) and also be able to change its spin. Each atom and its
"containment field" are defined as one computational unit, a
qubit, or quantum bit.
The quantum computer owes a debt to a man who may
have doubted its existence to be possible, the physicist Edwin
(25) Schrodinger. Studying the atomic decay of radioactive
particles on a quantum level, Schrodinger proclaimed
something must be wrong with the mathematics. The
calculations seemed to suggest that two answers were
possible at any given time, the superposition which is the
(30) basis of quantum computation. To show the absurdity of this
outcome, Schrodinger created a thought experiment.
Imagine a cat that is in a box and cannot be observed. Also
in the box is a syringe of poison which will be injected into
the cat, causing the feline to die. The trigger for the syringe
(35) is the same process of atomic decay which Schrodinger had
been calculating. A scientist uses the math of quantum
physics to determine at what point the syringe is activated
and the cat dies. What the scientist discovers, however, is
that, according to the mathematics, at any given point the cat
(40) is both alive and dead. Schrodinger had no idea that he had
just designed the world's first quantum computer.

Question
The passage suggests that the spin state of a hydrogen atom is analogous to what aspect of Schrodinger's thought experiment?
Choices
A - the box that the cat is contained in
B - the poison-filled syringe
C - the mathematical calculations that the scientist must make
D - the process of atomic decay
E - the observation that the cat is both alive and dead at any given moment

OA D

E must be the answer.

Spin on = on; Spin off = off, it can be on and off at the same time which is equivalent to cat being dead and alive at the same time.

bellcurve wrote:E must be the answer.

Spin on = on; Spin off = off, it can be on and off at the same time which is equivalent to cat being dead and alive at the same time.

I had E as well, but it is not the OA.

IMO B.

Whats the OA ?

AIM GMAT wrote:IMO B.

Whats the OA ?

Interested in other questions for this passage? All are 700+ though.

No matter how complex the topic, treat all RC questions the same way: Find some textual evidence for a prediction.

The quantum computer works by reading the "spin" of atoms. We are told that

A spin-based quantum computer would consist of a number of "contained" hydrogen atoms as well as the means of control -- in other words, the device that would contain the atom, read its spin as either "spin up" or "spin down," and also be able to change its spin.

So, the hydrogen atoms are the things that are spinning, and the computer is "reading" them with this "means of control." Let's try to find an analogous situation in Paragraph 2:

Imagine a cat that is in a box and cannot be observed. Also in the box is a syringe of poison which will be injected into the cat, causing the feline to die. The trigger for the syringe is the same process of atomic decay which Schrodinger had been calculating.

So here we have a box and a syringe that respond to something, the same way our quantum computer will respond to hydrogen atoms. What are we responding to? "the process of atomic decay."

Answer: D.

AdamKnewton wrote:No matter how complex the topic, treat all RC questions the same way: Find some textual evidence for a prediction.

The quantum computer works by reading the "spin" of atoms. We are told that

A spin-based quantum computer would consist of a number of "contained" hydrogen atoms as well as the means of control -- in other words, the device that would contain the atom, read its spin as either "spin up" or "spin down," and also be able to change its spin.

So, the hydrogen atoms are the things that are spinning, and the computer is "reading" them with this "means of control." Let's try to find an analogous situation in Paragraph 2:

Imagine a cat that is in a box and cannot be observed. Also in the box is a syringe of poison which will be injected into the cat, causing the feline to die. The trigger for the syringe is the same process of atomic decay which Schrodinger had been calculating.

So here we have a box and a syringe that respond to something, the same way our quantum computer will respond to hydrogen atoms. What are we responding to? "the process of atomic decay."

Answer: D.

I chose E. I thought of this question as inference question. If I think about this as specific detail question then above explanation would make sense. Is this the way, I should avoid making RC mistakes?
"Specific detail question: Look for exact words/paraphrase of same words in passage, don't INFER"
and do opposite for "Inference questions"

Is this the right approach to avoid future mistakes like these?

-Swapnil.

spucmu wrote: I chose E. I thought of this question as inference question. If I think about this as specific detail question then above explanation would make sense. Is this the way, I should avoid making RC mistakes?
"Specific detail question: Look for exact words/paraphrase of same words in passage, don't INFER"
and do opposite for "Inference questions"

Is this the right approach to avoid future mistakes like these?

-Swapnil.

(E) is actually wrong because it's specifically not parallel to the spin-state; it's parallel to the fact that the "switch" could have two separate states:

the "switch" in a quantum computer, unlike the electronic switch in a classical computer, is not just "on" or "off" but could also be both at the same time.

In this sense, (E) would be wrong regardless of how we analyze this question, although it is tempting. One quick way to tell this is that (E) talks about "the observation" about the cat, whereas the question is asking us not about an observed fact but about the actual spin state. That is, if (E) said "the state of the cat as dead or alive," that would be different from -- although still not correct -- "the observation that..."

In terms of your more general question, though, you should never be "inferring" things the way you describe above on the GMAT. An Inference on the GMAT is only something that is completely supported by the given text; if there is any possibility at all that an answer choice might not be true, it's not a valid logical inference. Detail and Inference questions do not differ based on which one has more direct textual evidence; rather, Detail questions will refer to one specific line, whereas Inference questions may require us to put two or three different lines of text together, or to generalize from the author's Main idea or Attitude. However, no answer choice will ever be correct on the GMAT unless you can find absolute support for it in the text. You can take this rule to the bank!

IMO D

Agree with 'D'