Helpful to know | Video lesson

- [Instructor] To identify the question, let's look at what it asks. In evaluating Yang's argument, it would be most helpful to know whether... This is a most helpful question. It's similar to a strengthen or weaken question in a lot of ways because the answer contains information that, if you had that information, would make you either more or less inclined to agree with the arguer. The wrong choices are, basically, topics that don't affect the argument one way or the other, no matter what the answer to the question is. Pause your video now if you'd like to try this question on your own. Otherwise, let's go into the explanation. Okay, let's read the stimulus together. Since we're asked about Yang's argument, we don't really need to do much with Anders' except read it and have a decent sense of the argument. By the way, if we had been asked about Anders' argument, instead of Yang's, we would have been able to skip Yang's argument completely since it's second. Okay, let's read. Anders. The physical structure of the brain plays an important role in thinking. So researchers developing thinking machines, computers that can make decisions based on both common sense and factual knowledge, should closely model those machines on the structure of the brain. Yang responds, important does not mean essential. After all, no flying machine closely modeled on birds has worked; workable aircraft are structurally very different from birds, so thinking machines closely modeled on the brain are also likely to fail. In developing a workable thinking machine, researchers would therefore increase their chances of success if they focus on the brain's function and simply ignore its physical structure. Alright. Our friend Anders is basically recommending that researchers model thinking machines on the structure of the brain. Yang disagrees with that and thinks that those kinds of thinking machines would probably fail. Why? Because of this analogy to modeling a flying machine on a bird and the fact that workable aircraft are very structurally different from birds. Then, Yang makes a new explanation that for this workable thinking machine, researchers should focus on the brain's function and just ignore its physical structure. For these question types, sometimes you'll kind of see a gaping hole and say, but wait a minute, I need to know X. Other times, you might not see it and that's okay, you can go to the choices and do what we're about to do here. As we evaluate the choices, let's turn each of them into a question and then, if answering the question with a yes, move the argument in a different way than answering the question with a no, that means we have our answer, but if we find ourselves saying something like I really don't care either way, then that means we're looking at a wrong choice. Let me show you what I mean. A reads, studies of the physical structure of birds provided information crucial to the development of workable aircraft. If we turn this into a question, we get: Did studies of the physical structure of birds provide information crucial to the development of workable aircraft? Well, let's think. If the answer were yes, that would weaken the argument. Yang doesn't want to pay attention to structure but if the answer were yes, then it would be helpful to look at the brain's structure. If the answer to this question were no, that would strengthen the argument. If studies of the physical structure of birds didn't provide information crucial to the development of workable aircraft, then Yang would have a better case in wanting to ignore the brain's physical structure. So this is our answer and on test day, we would select it and move on to the next question but let's look at the wrong choices in case you have questions on them and then we'll provide a recap. B, researchers currently working on thinking machines take all thinking to involve both common sense and factual knowledge. Let's turn it into a question. Do researchers currently working on thinking machines take all thinking to involve both common sense and factual knowledge? The answer to this wouldn't affect Yang's argument at all. It's just defining what thinking is and it seems to be in line with what Anders defines thinking as, anyway. So the answer to this doesn't help us evaluate the argument. C, as much time has been spent trying to develop a workable thinking machine as had been spent in developing the first workable aircraft. Turning it into a question, we get: Has as much time been spent trying to develop a workable thinking machine as had been spent developing the first workable aircraft? Well, time doesn't matter, right? We care about what each kind of design, the aircraft design and the thinking machine design, we care about what each design was based on, not how long it took to make them. D, researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain are among those who are trying to develop thinking machines. Turn it into a question. Are researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain among those who are trying to develop thinking machines? We don't care about the answer to this question. Whether there's overlap between these two groups or not doesn't affect Yang's argument, either way. And finally, E. Some flying machines that were not closely modeled on birds failed to work. Or, as a question, did some flying machines that were not closely modeled on birds fail to work? Again, we don't care about the answer to this question. The issue is with aircraft designs that did work, that were not modeled on birds. If some flying machines that weren't modeled on birds failed to work, that's nice but totally irrelevant to this situation. So to recap, for most helpful or least helpful to know questions, understand the conclusion and evidence of the argument you're asked about and see if there's something you really wish you knew so that you can decide whether you want to agree or disagree with the arguer. It's like your friend asking you for advice and saying, do you think I can afford to buy this house? Well, you would answer with questions, right? You need information. You need to know how much your friend makes, how much debt they have, how much the house costs, things like that. The same thing is true for most and least helpful to know questions. Try to see if there's something you really wish that you knew. If you can't quickly find any obviously missing information, then, go to the choices like we did here and phrase each one as a question. If the argument is strengthened or weakened, depending on whether the question is yes or no, then you have your answer.