Note: This is video #2 in a two-part explanation using the split approach for comparative passages. In the previous video, J.Y. already tackled whatever questions he could based solely on a readthrough of Passage A. In this video, he picks up with Passage B and then cleans up the remaining questions. So, if you don't see a full explanation for a given question in this video, it's because J.Y. tackled that question in the previous video. (Press shift + ← to head to the previous video.)
Note: This video deals with Passage A only. In this video, J.Y. uses the split approach for comparrative passages. This means he reads through Passage A and then makes a first pass through the questions, answering them to the extent possible based solely on the information in Passage A. For an explanation of Passage B and the remaining unsolved questions, head to the next video (shift + → on your keyboard).
Adelaide: But you are overlooking the fact that the computer in the case you cite was simply an extension of the people who programmed it. It was their successful distillation of the principles of chess that enabled them to defeat a chess champion using a computer.
Speaker 1 Summary
Graham claims that it’s inevitable that humans will invent a truly intelligent machine. How do we know? Because the world chess champion was recently beaten by a computer. According to Graham, this means that computers can master any kind of principle-based intellectual activity (which Graham assumes means that machine intelligence is coming).
Speaker 2 Summary
Adelaide comes to the implied conclusion that the chess example doesn’t actually mean that AI is imminent. This is because the computer’s chess skill was just an extension of its programmers, who were able to accurately program the rules of chess. Thus, it doesn’t follow that computers can necessarily master all other sorts of activities.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Graham and Adelaide disagree on whether this chess victory shows the computer’s ability to learn intellectual activities.
A
chess is the best example of a human intellectual activity that is governed by fixed principles
Neither speaker makes this claim. Graham uses chess as one example of a human intellectual activity that is governed by fixed principles, but neither speaker says whether it’s the best example.
B
chess is a typical example of the sorts of intellectual activities in which human beings characteristically engage
Neither speaker claims this. Neither Graham nor Adelaide discusses what kinds of intellectual activities are most characteristic or typical for humans to engage in.
C
a computer’s defeat of a human chess player is an accomplishment that should be attributed to the computer
Graham agrees with this but Adelaide disagrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Graham infers that computers can master certain human activities, meaning he thinks that this computer mastered chess. Adelaide claims that it’s the programmers’ achievement, not the computer’s.
D
intelligence can be demonstrated by the performance of an activity in accord with fixed principles
Graham may agree with this, but Adelaide never offers an opinion. Adelaide doesn’t weigh in on the issue of machine intelligence at all, instead focusing on whether the computer or the programmers should get credit for this chess victory.
E
tools can be designed to aid in any human activity that is governed by fixed principles
Neither speaker makes this claim. Adelaide’s argument implies that the computer was used as a chess-playing tool by its programmers, but she never generalizes that model to all principle-based activities. Graham doesn’t discuss tools at all.
Summary
Fruit trees can only be correctly labeled as “miniature” if they can be grown in a tub or pot.
Some nurseries label Stark Sweet Melody trees as “miniature.”
Some nurseries label Stark Sweet Melody trees as “miniature.”
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
Stark Sweet Melody nectarine trees can only be correctly labeled as “miniature” if they can be grown in a tub or pot.
If Stark Sweet Melody trees can’t be grown in a tub or pot, then some nurseries mislabel them.
If Stark Sweet Melody trees can’t be grown in a tub or pot, then some nurseries mislabel them.
A
Most nurseries mislabel at least some of their fruit trees.
Unsupported. Not all nurseries use the term “miniature” in the same way. Some might be mislabeling their fruit trees as “miniature,” but we don’t know that most are.
B
Some of the nurseries have correctly labeled nectarine trees of the Stark Sweet Melody variety only if the variety is unsuitable for growing in a tub or a pot.
Anti-supported. Some nurseries have correctly labeled Stark Sweet Melody trees only if these trees are suitable for growing in a tub or pot. If they’re not suitable for growing in a tub or pot, then some nurseries have incorrectly labeled them as “miniature.”
C
Any nectarine tree of the Stark Sweet Melody variety that a nursery labels “miniature” is labeled incorrectly.
Unsupported. Stark Sweet Melody trees might be suitable for growing in a tub or pot. If they are, we can’t conclude that they’re labeled incorrectly.
D
Some nectarine trees that are not labeled “miniature” are labeled incorrectly.
Unsupported. We only know that trees that are labeled “miniature” are labeled incorrectly if they can’t be grown in a tub or a pot. We don’t know what makes not labeling a tree “miniature” correct or incorrect.
E
Unless the Stark Sweet Melody variety of nectarine tree is suitable for growing in a tub or a pot, some nurseries mislabel this variety of tree.
Very strongly supported. Fruit trees can only be correctly labeled as “miniature” if they can be grown in a tub or pot. If Stark Sweet Melody trees are not suitable for growing in a tub or pot, then some nurseries mislabel them.