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

Question

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.

YangYichen · Answer

i understand that why B is an assumption of the stimuli but A can also be an assumption.
why is A not right?If computers can show originality then it can respond to situations as it were thinking? right?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

YangYichen , it might seem to undermine the argument if computers could demonstrate originality, but this doesn't really fit in with the premises. The author's point is that human experts are better than computers because their experience gives them a repertoire of model situations to draw on. There's nothing here about originality, and it's not clear how originality would affect the argument. If humans are superior because of their experience, it isn't necessary for humans to also have a monopoly on originality.

Does that help?

raunakd11 · Answer

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!

unraveled · Answer

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.

ashutosh_73 · Answer

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?

KarishmaB · Answer

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).

ashutosh_73 · Answer

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...

KarishmaB · Answer

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!

vasu1104 · Answer

conclusion= computerized expert systems cant be as good as human experts. 
 reason= the knowledge of human experts is not stored withing their brains in the form of rules and facts. 
 to become an expert, experience is require. it gives intuitive response to any new situation.

A not concern 
 B if we can do that then they can be as good as human experts. perfect 
 C but those cant be of computer. reject 
 D irrelevant 
 E relying on intuition is not primary focus.

mkeshri185 · Answer

But isn't B already given in the passage , the last sentence? That it is not stored in computer brains..

egmat · Answer

Great question!  This is a subtle but critical distinction.

What the passage says: 
> Human expert knowledge is  not stored  in their brains as rules and facts

What option (B) says: 
> Human expert knowledge  cannot be adequately rendered into  computer-storable information

These are NOT the same claim!

The Distinction: 
- Passage: How knowledge  currently exists  ("isn't stored as")
- Option (B): Whether it  CAN BE converted  ("cannot be rendered into")

Analogy: 
"A chef's intuition isn't stored as a recipe" ≠ "A chef's intuition can't be written as a recipe"

The first describes current state; the second describes capability.

Why the argument NEEDS (B):

The passage proves: Human expertise ≠ rules/facts
The conclusion claims: Computers can't match human experts

But what if we could EXTRACT and CONVERT that intuition into rules?  The argument would collapse!

(B) closes this gap: Even if we tried to convert human expertise into computer format,  we can't do it adequately . That's the missing link.

Negation Test: 
If human expert knowledge  CAN  be adequately rendered into computer-storable info → computers  could  potentially match experts →  argument falls apart .

Answer: (B)

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards