A successful chess-playing computer would prove either that a machine can think or that chess does not involve thinking. In either case the conception of human intelligence would surely change.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a successful chess-playing computer would change how we see human intelligence, because it would either prove that a machine can think or that chess doesn’t require thinking.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author uses premises about computers playing chess to support a conclusion about humans playing chess. He mistakenly assumes that what is true of a computer’s chess-playing method is also true of a human’s chess-playing method. But what if, for example, a computer doesn’t require thinking to play chess, but a human does? In that case, our understanding of human intelligence might not be affected by a successful chess-playing computer.
A
the conception of intelligence is inextricably linked to that of thought
The author doesn't overlook the possibility that an understanding of intelligence is linked to an understanding of thought. Instead, he assumes that the two are linked.
B
a truly successful chess program may never be invented
This may be true, but it doesn’t affect the author’s argument, so it can’t be the flaw. The author never claims that a successful chess-playing computer will be invented. He just says that if one is invented, it will change our understanding of human intelligence.
C
computer programs have been successfully applied to games other than chess
This may be true, but it doesn’t affect the author’s argument, so it can’t be the flaw. His argument only addresses chess-playing computers; it doesn’t matter if computers can play any other kinds of games.
D
a successful chess-playing computer would not model a human approach to chess playing
By applying premises about a computer’s approach to chess to a conclusion about a human’s approach to chess, the author assumes that the two are relevantly similar. But if the two approaches are different, a chess-playing computer may not affect how we see human intelligence.
E
the inability to play chess has more to do with lack of opportunity than with lack of intelligence
The author’s argument addresses what would happen if a computer were able to play chess. He never discusses an inability to play chess.
Sometimes, people’s complaints about a particular technology are outweighed by the benefits of that technology.
People may be unwilling to give up a particular technology even though they have some complaints about it.
The same technology can have both drawbacks and benefits.