pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Moore's Law, which predicts exponential growth in the capacity of integrated circuits, is often cited as one of the most accurate technological theories of the century. Although it was made back in 1958, many futurists argue that Moore's Law will be true into the 22nd century.

Which of the following statements most strengthens this argument?

A Moore's Law applies only to integrated circuits, which were invented in 1958.
B No technology experts believe that integrated circuits will become obsolete before 2100.
C Moore's Law has failed to predict the invention of many innovative technologies, such as the internet.
D Moore's Law has been an almost perfect predictor of technological growth since it was first posited.
E Moore himself predicted that the Law would far outlive him and be studied for several centuries.

IMO B. No other option IMO was fitting properly.
If we negate B, the futurists' argument falls apart.

IMO B

B it is.

My pick is B what is the OA

@pradeep - with the exception of this one, where the discussion hasnt been that extensive, can you please post the OA for all the Knewton cr's that you have posted in the past couple of days ..

IMO D

B is saying that the electronic industry will alive at least by 2100, -> so what, how it is strengthening that the Moore law will hold true.

D is giving a good support that the law is holding true till now -> so we can expect that it will be true in future also

2100 is nothing but the 22nd century.

paes wrote:IMO D

B is saying that the electronic industry will alive at least by 2100, -> so what, how it is strengthening that the Moore law will hold true.

D is giving a good support that the law is holding true till now -> so we can expect that it will be true in future also

reply2spg wrote:2100 is nothing but the 22nd century.

paes wrote:IMO D

B is saying that the electronic industry will alive at least by 2100, -> so what, how it is strengthening that the Moore law will hold true.

D is giving a good support that the law is holding true till now -> so we can expect that it will be true in future also

Ya, I know but how it is strengthening that the Moore's law will be valid.

Also, believe/opinion these words don't support an argument. --> authority appeal error : you can read more about this on CR bible.

To support/strengthen an argument, you need to five some solid proof.

pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:Moore's Law, which predicts exponential growth in the capacity of integrated circuits, is often cited as one of the most accurate technological theories of the century. Although it was made back in 1958, many futurists argue that Moore's Law will be true into the 22nd century.

Which of the following statements most strengthens this argument?

A Moore's Law applies only to integrated circuits, which were invented in 1958.
B No technology experts believe that integrated circuits will become obsolete before 2100.
C Moore's Law has failed to predict the invention of many innovative technologies, such as the internet.
D Moore's Law has been an almost perfect predictor of technological growth since it was first posited.
E Moore himself predicted that the Law would far outlive him and be studied for several centuries.

it should be B, whats the OA?

OA Please ??

IMO B -

hey Pradeep , can you please Post the OA , this will help all of us here to know the correct answer.
( i think now guys are waiting only for the OA.. )

sorry guy all are cursing me for not posting oa. but i think u should thank me to post such good questions as these are from my knewton prep course. when majority of people choose one option than 90 % of chances is that is the oa

here oa is B only

paes concentrate

Pradeep,

Thanks, really you have put some good questions from Knewton.

But don't know why, I am still not convinced with B.

Suppose B is:

No technology experts believe that integrated circuits will become obsolete before 2500/2600/2700......

how does it make the difference.

[ Please post OA for other knewton problems also. ]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the invite to chime in!

As with pretty much all Strengthen questions, this one comes down to having a correct answer that fits within the exact scope of the conclusion, which is that:

Moore's law - which is specific to integrated circuits - will hold true into the 22nd century

All of the current evidence that we have points out that it has been traditionally very accurate...but there's nothing that predicts the future accuracy of it, and that's a crucial part of the conclusion to this argument.

Choice B supplies that missing piece by saying that integrated circuits will remain relevant into the 22nd century. Regardless of how accurate the law has been previously, if it's specific to those circuits and those circuits are no longer in use, then it can't possibly hold into the future.

Choice D, like the given information, only applies to the past, so it doesn't add any new support to the argument. We already know from the argument that the law is "one of the most accurate theories of the century", too.


Choice B is correct, and a good example of an "Assumption" correct answer, too. It's not necessarily new, "exciting" information...it's more about the fact that, without it, the conclusion looks pretty silly. It supplies important information that you wouldn't think of on your own but that the argument really needs. It sort of solidifies the foundation, which is shakier than you would have thought.

As another example, suppose I were to say:

If I win the $200 million lottery jackpot next week, I'll never have to work another day in my life.

Well, something that would strengthen my argument is that "dollars will remain a viable currency for the rest of my life". It almost seems too basic, but if inflation were to run rampant or the US financial system were to collapse, that money could theoretically become worthless. It's not "new" information per se...more the removal of a hypothetical situation that would drastically weaken my conclusion.

Thanks Brian.

I was confused with this problem, which was simple for everybody else here.

Your explanation makes sense.