If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Strongly supported inferences | Worked example

Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a question that asks "What is most strongly supported?". Created by Sal Khan.

Want to join the conversation?

  • blobby green style avatar for user a a
    For What is most strongly supported questions, will the answer always be stated in the paragraph?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • blobby green style avatar for user Cat
      I think so, but I think it is an answer that is "supported" by the passage. Sometimes, the choices can appear they are supporting, but as he points out, it either makes assumptions, makes it too strong of a statement (overly supporting), or includes info that alters or elaborates a claim that doesn't fully exist. Then again, I could be completely wrong! lol
      (2 votes)

Video transcript

- Beginners typically decide each chess move by considering the consequences. Expert players, in contrast, primarily use pattern-recognition techniques. That is, such a player recognizes, having been in a similar position before, and makes a decision based on information recalled about the consequences of moves chosen on that prior occasion. Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above. Alright now let's look at these. Choice A. Beginning chess players are better at thinking through the consequences of chess moves than experts are. Well that just seems strange as a statement, and if you look at the original information, they just say that beginning players typically decide by, considering the consequences. They're not saying that beginning chess players are better at considering the consequences, I would actually be surprised if that's the truth. So without even looking at these other choices, I'm feeling pretty good that A is not going to be it, because it's not really supported, it's not saying that beginning chess players are better at thinking through consequences, it's just they rely more on that, than most expert players. So let me cross this one out. Choice B. A beginning chess player should use pattern-recognition techniques when deciding what move to make. That one doesn't feel right either, because remember the pattern-recognition techniques that experts do, they are relying on information recalled about the consequences of moves chosen on that prior occasion. But a beginning chess player isn't going to have all of that experience. They're not going to have all of that memory, and that information recall. So, it doesn't make sense, or it's not supported by the information here, for them to primarily use pattern-recognition techniques. So I'll rule that one out, I'll rule that one out as well. I'll rule this first one out as well. Okay, so this last, choice C. One's chess skills will improve only if one learns to use pattern-recognition techniques. So this one is interesting, 'cause what are they saying, they're saying expert players, in contrast, primarily use pattern-recognition techniques. So this ones interesting, this one feels close, but let's look at the other choices 'cause this is saying, improve only if. Well, we're not even saying, whether you want to become an expert, we're talking about whether you want to improve, and in general whenever you see a really strong statement like this I tend to become a little bit skeptical. This is like, only if, only if one learns to use pattern-recognition techniques. We're not even saying that you want to become an expert, you just need to improve. And I would assume that your chess skills will improve just by playing more, by even getting better at, these beginner considering the consequences. The only way to improve isn't through pattern-recognition techniques, that's not implied by this information here. So talking through it a little bit, I feel good about ruling this one out as well. In playing chess, an expert player relies crucially on his or her memory. This is interesting, they're telling us, expert players primarily use pattern-recognition techniques. That is such a player recognizes, that seems like memory, recognizes having been in a similar position before, and makes a decision based on the information recalled, about the consequences of the moves. So if we're talking about information recall, recognizing things based on previous similar positions, information recall, this does look like they are relying crucially, on their memory. So this one's looking good, let's look at this last choice. Any chess player who played other games that require pattern-recognition skills, would thereby improve his or her chess skills. They haven't made that claim in this information above, that doesn't seem supported at all. Experts do use pattern-recognition, but it says nothing about how well you can port those pattern-recognition skills from one game to another. So I would rule that one out as well, and I would pick choice D.