LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 4, Question 19
Identify the FlawArgument structure
If there's a successful chess-playing computer, the conception of human intelligence will change.
The successful chess-playing computer would indicate that computers can think or that chess doesn't involve thinking.
Explanation
The conclusion here is about the concept of human intelligence, but there's no evidence telling us anything about human intelligence. A computer that plays chess may not be coming up with moves the same way a human would, and therefore may not cause us to change our minds about the concept of human intelligence.
A computer "thinking" is not necessarily relevant to the concept of human intelligence. We're not supposed to bring in outside information on the LSAT, but for the purpose of illustrating my point consider the following: I imagine that chess-playing computers "think" in a much more mathematical and calculating way while humans more so employ other strategic thinking like memory and pattern recognition.
Answer choices
This doesn't point out any issues in the logic of the stimulus. The author actually did seem to be making some sort of connection between the ideas of intelligence and thought.
This is irrelevant because the stimulus is about if this computer were to be developed theoretically. The author isn't making a claim about if it will or won't be developed.
This is outside the scope of the argument. We don't know the implications of a computer playing other games.
The author hasn't considered this. A successful chess-playing computer may "think" completely differently than a human and may not have anything to do with human intelligence.
This is irrelevant to the conclusion. We're talking about a scenario where a computer would have the opportunity to play chess.