GRE BB Test 6.1 Reading Question 2

[mishum2000]

Computer programmers often remark that computing machines, with a perfect lack of discrimination, will do any foolish thing they are told to do. The reason for this lies, of course, in the narrow fixation of the computing machine's "intelligence" on the details of its own perceptions—its inability to be guided by any large context. In a psychological description of the computer intelligence, three related adjectives come to mind: single-minded, literal-minded, and simpleminded. Recognizing this, we should at the same time recognize that this single-mindedness, literal-mindedness, and simplemindedness also characterizes theoretical mathematics, though to a lesser extent.

Since science tries to deal with reality, even the most precise sciences normally work with more or less imperfectly understood approximations toward which scientists must maintain an appropriate skepticism. Thus, for instance, it may come as a shock to mathematicians to learn that the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom is not a literally correct description of this atom, but only an approximation to a somewhat more correct equation taking account of spin, magnetic dipole, and relativistic effects; and that this corrected equation is itself only an imperfect approximation to an infinite set of quantum field-theoretical equations. Physicists, looking at the original Schrodinger equation, learn to sense in it the presence of many invisible terms in addition to the differential terms visible, and this sense inspires an entirely appropriate disregard for the purely technical features of the equation. This very healthy skepticism is foreign to the mathematical approach.

Mathematics must deal with well-defined situations. Thus, mathematicians depend on an intellectual effort outside of mathematics for the crucial specification of the approximation that mathematics is to take literally. Give mathematicians a situation that is the least bit ill-defined, and they will make it well-defined, perhaps appropriately, but perhaps inappropriately. In some cases, the mathematicians' literal-mindedness may have unfortunate consequences. The mathematicians turn the scientists' theoretical assumptions, that is, their convenient points of analytical emphasis, into axioms, and then take these axioms literally. This brings the danger that they may also persuade the scientists to take these axioms literally. The question, central to the scientific investigation but intensely disturbing in the mathematical context—what happens if the axioms are relaxed? —is thereby ignored.

The physicist rightly dreads precise argument, since an argument that is convincing only if it is precise loses all its force if the assumptions on which it is based are slightly changed, whereas an argument that is convincing though imprecise may well be stable under small perturbations of its underlying assumptions.

21. The author discusses computing machines in the first paragraph primarily in order to do which the following?

A) Indicate the dangers inherent in relying to a great extent on machines
B) Illustrate his views about the approach of mathematicians to problem solving
C) Compare the work of mathematicians with that of computer programmers
D) Provide one definition of intelligence
E) Emphasize the importance of computers in modern technological society

Please detail your answer. Why did you choose it.

Thanks,

Michael.

[Mits83]

It cannot be A or E, because the passage does not talk about machines/computers. It also cannot be C because computer programmers are not mentioned anywhere.

Only B and D remain. D is quite right, but I guess B fits better, because the first part is in fact used to summarize the remaining passage.

What do you think is right?

[bhanu]

The choice E can be ruled out easily because nothing like that is stated in passage.
Similarly choice C seems wrong as there might be some hint of comparision of intelligence of mathematicians and computer but not the programmer.
Now that we have 3 choices i.e., A B D
Let's take these at a time
A. The authors "the computer will do any foolish thing they are told to do." does not necessarily indicate the dangers inherent in relying to a great extent on machines but rather questions the preciseness of machines.
B. Doesnot quite fits here.
D. Remaining appropriate point (for me), It seems that the intelligence used by mathematicians can be compared with the working of computers. Thus introducing machines to intelligence, and then intelligence to mathematician __ can be taken as best choice.

Any other reasoning?

Any other reasoning?

[purifier]

A,C,E can be ruled out from the above explanations... The remaining ones are B and D...

D could be true, but I see not a definition but perhaps, an attribution.... He is somehow connecting the Computer Intelligence and mathematics...

So I feel B fits in correctly...

What do you say Michael?