Critical Reasoning

Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

crimson2283 wrote:Gambling experts contend that with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing. Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful as a basis for arguing against the author's claim that the gambling experts' contention cannot be evaluated?

Some technicians using advanced computers have been able to gamble successfully more than half the time.
Gambling experts readily admit that it is not yet possible to produce the necessary computer equipment.
There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
Certain rare configurations of computer data can serve as a basis for precise gambling predictions.
Even without computer assistance, skilled gamblers can make a steady living from gambling.

my take in bold..!!!

Please explain your reasoning. Why not A?

I see it. A has - more than half the time

crimson2283 wrote:I see it. A has - more than half the time

Exactly...!! i think i don't need to elaborate more...!!!! :mrgreen:

Why C ?

1. Gambling experts say computer programs will allow skilled techs to win almost every time
2. This claim cant be evaluated because there will always be excuses for the losses.

A. Incorrect. There are a few issues here. One is that they are talking about some techs and not necessarily skilled ones. Secondly more than half of the time doesnt mean all the time.

B. Incorrect. Just because it does not exist yet does not mean it can or can not be evaluated when and if it comes to the market.

C. Correct. The argument is based on the fact that you cant measure losses. If a direct correlation already exists between computers and success than that correlation can be used to evaluate the claim and in fact measure why a loss did or did not occur.

D. Incorrect. Whether the software exists or not is important. All we care about is measuring the success of the software.

E. Incorrect. Whether or not gamblers can do well without computers has no meaning in this case.

Fitzgerald23,
But C still leaves the scope for an excuse
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
C)There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
If C is true then if the programmer loses a bet, he can always make an excuse that the equipment with him wasnt that sophisticated
Why do u still root for C?

IMO it shd be C.
I had only two contenders A and C.

I negated A coz it mentions "more than half". but the argument says the 'a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing'.

C - says that there is direct relation between the sophestication of technolgy and success. Same has been said in the argument. 'with a sufficiently advanced computer technology, a skilled technician will soon be able to win almost every time he or she bets on horse racing'.

BTW what's the OA ?

mundasingh123 wrote:Fitzgerald23,
But C still leaves the scope for an excuse
Yet such a claim could never be evaluated, for losses would simply be blamed on immature technology or the technician's lack of proficiency.
C)There is a direct correlation between the sophistication of computer technology available to a programmer and the gambling success he or she achieves with it.
If C is true then if the programmer loses a bet, he can always make an excuse that the equipment with him wasnt that sophisticated
Why do u still root for C?

You have to remember that the choice does not have to be perfect. It has to be the best of the bunch. The choice is telling us that there is a correlation between technology and success. A correlation like this tells us that whatever level the technology is will determine success. It more or less tells us that the technology will answer the question and that the excuses are limited.

OA is C