Evaluation Question:

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

Evaluation Question:

by [email protected] » Thu May 10, 2012 4:05 pm
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...
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Thu May 10, 2012 7:52 pm
(A) for me.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Thu May 17, 2012 6:00 am
I thought that Yang's argument was -focus on the brain's function and simply ignore its physical structure. . but it seems that the author wants to evaluate -no flying machine closely modeled on birds has worked; workable aircraft are structurally very different from birds.
How do we know which one is the argument for sure?

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Thu May 17, 2012 9:51 am
The argument is definitely that the scientists should concentrate on the functioning of the brain and not it's physical structure. In arriving at this conclusion, Yang uses the evidence that flying models do not resemble in structure, flying birds.

So, in order to evaluate this argument, it would be useful to ascertain whether any important information was gained through studying the physical structure of birds, while developing the working model of the aircraft.

Hence, A!