In any field, experience is required for a proficient person to become

In any field, experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert. Through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation. This is the hallmark of expertise, and for this reason computerized “expert systems” cannot be as good as human exerts. Although computers have the ability to store millions of bits of information, the knowledge of human experts, who benefit from the experience of thousands of situations, is not stored within their brains in the form of rules and facts.

The argument requires the assumption of which one of the following?


(A) Computers can show no more originality in responding to a situation than that built into them by their designers.

(B) The knowledge of human experts cannot be adequately rendered into the type of information that a computer can store.

(C) Human experts rely on information that can be expressed by rules and facts when they respond to new situations.

(D) Future advances in computer technology will not render computers capable of sorting through greater amounts of information.

(E) Human experts rely heavily on intuition while they are developing a repertory of model situations.

Hello!

Option A is not clearly assuming how humans are better than computers in terms of storing an information.
Option C is going against the data given in the passage.
Option D is not pertinent to the argument.

I was stuck between Option B and Option E

Option E is a close contender, but not that sufficient because it does not fulfil the purpose so as to why and how are the humans better.

Option B solves this issue as it tells us how important and unique the human mind is over the computer.

Official Answer:- Option B

Thanks!

Regards,
Raunak Damle!

In any field, experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert. Through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation. This is the hallmark of expertise, and for this reason computerized “expert systems” cannot be as good as human exerts. Although computers have the ability to store millions of bits of information, the knowledge of human experts, who benefit from the experience of thousands of situations, is not stored within their brains in the form of rules and facts.

The argument requires the assumption of which one of the following?


(A) Computers can show no more originality in responding to a situation than that built into them by their designers. - WRONG. Doesn't at all relate to the conclusion(highlighted part). Situation(rules and facts) built by designers or situations in reality response by computers can't be an assumption to break the conclusion.

(B) The knowledge of human experts cannot be adequately rendered into the type of information that a computer can store. - CORRECT. If not, this means knowledge can be stored.

(C) Human experts rely on information that can be expressed by rules and facts when they respond to new situations. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) Future advances in computer technology will not render computers capable of sorting through greater amounts of information. - WRONG. Out of scope.

(E) Human experts rely heavily on intuition while they are developing a repertory of model situations. - WRONG. Not related to the conclusion.

Answer B.

Hi DmitryFarber GMATNinja KarishmaB AjiteshArun MartyMurray

I can see how the other answers are wrong but B seems to be true with few assumptions. Would appreciate if you could help to understand the argument better:


Premise-1: Through experience, a proficient person gradually develops a repertory of model situations that allows an immediate, intuitive response to each new situation
+
+
Premise-2: computers have the ability to store millions of bits of information, the knowledge of human experts, who benefit from the experience of thousands of situations, is not stored within their brains in the form of rules and facts
In any field, experience is required for a proficient person to become an expert.


Conclusion: This is the hallmark of expertise, and for this reason computerized “expert systems” cannot be as good as human exerts



So, regardless of how humans store model situations in their brains, their ability to respond intuitively from experience makes them better than computers.
Also PREMISE:2 seems to strengthen PREMISE:1 by expressing that ''the way computer stores information is not necessary to get the benefit of thousands of situation''

B doesn't really seem to account the ''intuitive response. Even if computer stores human knowledge, it still can't process the knowledge intuitively, right?

This is what the last sentence says:
Although computers have the ability to store millions of bits of information, the knowledge of human experts is not stored within their brains in the form of rules and facts.

So they have the ability to store a lot of data but they do not store the knowledge of human experts in the form of rules and facts (apparently the form that helps humans take intuitive decision about new situations based on experience)

By saying that "computerized “expert systems” cannot be as good as human experts," we are assuming that the knowledge of human experts cannot, in the future also, store the knowledge of human experts i.e. we cannot convert the "knowledge of human experts" into a form that the computers can store (and use subsequently).

Hi KarishmaB ,
Just so to make sure that i have the correct understanding:

(human repertory of model situations in Intuition FORM) + (Computer stores info in FORM of rules and facts) + (Human expert knowledge is not in the form of rules and facts) ---> hence, computerized “expert systems” cannot be as good as human experts

But wait, what if Intuition FORM can be converted to the FORM, which computer understands? This will make a huge dent on the argument?
Is my understanding correct?


Thanks for breaking it down for me. I have read tons of your CR explanations on GMATClub.
Most of LSAT + GMAT CR questions i have solved on GMATClub have your explanations, and, irrespective of my answer, i always make sure to go through those explanations.
Those have really helped me to narrow down my thoughts while i go through the timed practice, brining down my CR response time from 3:30-4:00 mins/ques to 2:30-2:45mins/ques while maintaining the accuracy.
I know, response time is still not enough but WIP...

Yes, this is correct. Humans develop a repertory of model situations (which is not in the form of rules and facts - a form that computers can store). Hence computers cannot become experts. This raises a question - what will happen if computers can store it in the same form as humans in future?

Our correct answer rules out that possibility.

I am happy to know that you are working on following the thought process to cut down your time taken! Already, 2:30 is great progress!