RC - Specific question

[karthikpandian19]

In 1958, Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit and ushered in the modern computer era. For the first time, using a semiconductor substrate, complete electronic circuits could be miniaturized and mass produced, ultimately leading to the advent of affordable consumer electronics. Unlike discrete circuits, integrated circuits contain a large number of transistors over a relatively small area. A greater number of transistors per circuit allows for faster processing speeds and more memory. Since the early 1960s, advances in photolithography and miniaturization have led to a doubling every two years in the number of transistors that can be cheaply placed on a single integrated circuit. In 1970, a typical integrated circuit could hold around two thousand transistors. In 2008, that number reached two billion. This consistent exponential increase in transistors per circuit and the consequent parallel improvement in computer processing speed and memory has been dubbed "Moore's Law" in honor of computer scientist Gordon Moore, the man who identified the trend.

Perhaps the most marvelous aspect of Moore's Law is its consistency. When Moore and other computer scientists identified the trend in 1965, they believed that the steady doubling of transistors per circuit could not continue much longer than roughly ten years. Instead, the pattern has continued through five decades. Though there have been a number of predictions as to when the trend will finally cease, a broad consensus among engineers and scientists asserts that the trends associated with Moore's Law will finally die out just before 2020. According to these same experts, by then transistors will have become so small as to begin approaching the size of atoms, and at that point will no longer be capable of processing basic logic functions integral to a computer's performance.

Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that Moore's Law may continue decades into the future. Futurist and computer scientist Ray Kurzweil points out that the most important trend identified by Moore's Law is not the increasing number of transistors per integrated circuit, but rather the exponential growth in computing power relative to cost. He argues that even if manufacturers reached a natural physical limit for miniaturized and parallel processing integrated circuits, new technologies, such as quantum computers, could maintain power-to-cost ratio aspect of Moore's Law. Given the number of unexpected new technological paradigms that have invalidated predictions of Moore's Law's demise since the 1960s, there is reason to support such a conclusion.

It can be inferred that computer scientist Gordon Moore, after whom Moore's Law was named, believed that


(A) though there will likely be an upper limit to the number of transistors that can be placed on a single integrated circuit, technological innovation will prolong the trend he identified

(B) the consistent doubling of transistors per integrated circuit will likely end by the year 2020

(C) once transistors are successfully miniaturized to roughly the size of atoms, it will become impossible to further increase the number that can be integrated into a single circuit

(D) discrete circuits were not nearly as capable as integrated circuits in terms of processing speed and memory

(E) the trend he identified, while accurate, was only a temporary phenomena

[Birottam Dutta]

It can be inferred that computer scientist Gordon Moore, after whom Moore's Law was named, believed that


(A) though there will likely be an upper limit to the number of transistors that can be placed on a single integrated circuit, technological innovation will prolong the trend he identified --- this is incorrect and is stated in the second sentence of the second paragraph.

(B) the consistent doubling of transistors per integrated circuit will likely end by the year 2020 --- again this is incorrect.

(C) once transistors are successfully miniaturized to roughly the size of atoms, it will become impossible to further increase the number that can be integrated into a single circuit --- this again is not what Moore believed in.

(D) discrete circuits were not nearly as capable as integrated circuits in terms of processing speed and memory --- this was a fact established in 1958 and cannot be an inference.

(E) the trend he identified, while accurate, was only a temporary phenomena---- this is correct and substantiated by the second line of the second para.

Hence, E!

[karthikpandian19]

OA is E

[karthikpandian19]

This inference question focuses on one subject's ideas. It is best to reread the relevant part of the passage so that we know what beliefs actually apply to him. This will help us avoid wrong answer choices that confuse the ideas of other passage subjects with his. We also want to avoid wrong answer choices that present ideas the passage subject might agree with, as these tend to be trap answer choices that are not directly evidenced by the text.

The only belief specifically attributed to Gordon Moore is in the second paragraph: When Moore... identified the trend in 1965, [he] believed that the steady doubling of transistors per circuit could not continue much longer than roughly ten years. The correct answer should relate to this statement.

Choice E is correct. If Moore believed that the trend he identified would only last ten years, then it follows that he thought it would be "temporary."

Choice A paraphrases the argument of Ray Kurzweil. The passage never implies that Moore agrees with this idea. On the contrary, Moore predicts that the trend will end around 1975.

Choice B cannot be attributed to Gordon Moore based on his prediction about the trend's eventual end. In 1965, Moore believed that the trend identified by Moore's Law would continue for just ten years. Other engineers and computer scientists believe the trend could last as long as this answer choice states.

Choice C pertains to the engineers and scientists cited in the middle of the second paragraph. Moore may agree with this statement, but we cannot infer this from the passage.

Choice D could be true but cannot be logically inferred from the information provided. Moore would likely agree that discrete circuits are not as capable as integrated ones; however, this opinion is not evidenced by anything specifically mentioned in the passage. The passage only tells us how he felt about the law named after him.