Anders: The physical structure of the brain plays an important role in thinking. So researchers developing "thinking machines"-computers that can make decisions based on both common sense and factual knowledge-should closely model those machines on the structure of the brain.

Yang: Important does not mean essential. After all, no flying machine closely modeled on birds has worked; workable aircraft are structurally very different from birds. So thinking machines closely modeled on the brain are also likely to fail. In developing a workable thinking machine, researchers would therefore increase their chances of success if they focus on the brain's function and simply ignore its physical structure.
In evaluating Yang's argument it would be most helpful to know whether:

A. studies of the physical structure of birds provided information crucial to the development of workable aircraft.

B. researchers currently working on thinking machines take all thinking to involve both common sense and factual knowledge.

C. as much time has been spent trying to develop a workable thinking machine as had been spent in developing the first workable aircraft.

D. researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain are among those who are trying to develop thinking machines.

E. some flying machines that were not closely modeled on birds failed to work.



The OA is A.


somehow the evaluate questions have always given me a hard time... Variance Test is the way to go...


Just try this question as it is also different from the usual Evaluate questions.




[spoiler]Usually when you apply a variance test, you have to see the extreme situations such as if it is a 'yes' then it will strengthen the question and if it is a 'no' then it will weaken the question.

But the opposite can also happen. i.e when you say 100% yes to a question, it can weaken the argument and when you say a 100% no to a question, it can strengthen the argument.[/spoiler]

This is actually what is happening in the above example


I hope this helps...