2004 June III 20

Jimoney

20. Interviewer: A certain company released a model of
computer whose microprocessor design was
flawed, making that computer liable to process
information incorrectly. How did this happen?

Industry spokesperson: Given the huge number of
circuits in the microprocessor of any modern
computer, not every circuit can be manually
checked before a computer model that contains
the microprocessor is released.

Interviewer: Then what guarantee do we have that new
microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?

Industry spokesperson: There is no chance of further
microprocessor design flaws, since all
microprocessors are now entirely computerdesigned.

The industry spokesperson’s argument is most
vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that
the microprocessor quality-control procedures
of the company mentioned are not
representative of those followed throughout the
industry
(B) ignores the possibility that a microprocessor can
have a flaw other than a design flaw
(C) overlooks the possibility that a new computer
model is liable to malfunction for reasons other
than a microprocessor flaw
(D) treats a single instance of a microprocessor
design flaw as evidence that there will be many
such flaws
(E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the
contrary, that some computers are not liable to
error


Answer is E, don't know why. Anybody can provide me with some explanation?

nidm

Interviewer: microprocessor .. flaw. Why? (ATTN: making that computer liable to process information incorrectly)
spokeperson: manually checked can't check every circuit. (回答上面的问题)
Interviewer: what guarantee.. new microprocessors (怎么保证以后不犯同样的错误)?
spokeperson: no flaw, since all .. entirely computerdesigned.(因为所有的都用计算机设计了) --- 读到这里,咱们心里就要有个问号了.

为什么用了计算机就不会有DESIGN FLAW? 难道计算机就不会犯错误?

E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary(参考ATTN), that some computers are not liable to error (难道计算机就不会犯错误? )

    

Jimoney

Thanks a lot

fredshen

以下是引用nidm在2006-9-12 5:48:00的发言：
Interviewer: microprocessor .. flaw. Why? (ATTN: making that computer liable to process information incorrectly)
spokeperson: manually checked can't check every circuit. (回答上面的问题)
Interviewer: what guarantee.. new microprocessors (怎么保证以后不犯同样的错误)?
spokeperson: no flaw, since all .. entirely computerdesigned.(因为所有的都用计算机设计了) --- 读到这里,咱们心里就要有个问号了.

为什么用了计算机就不会有DESIGN FLAW? 难道计算机就不会犯错误?

E) takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary(参考ATTN), that some computers are not liable to error (难道计算机就不会犯错误? )

 

难道计算机就不会犯错误?

it's not because that.

It's rather becaue the spoke persons said "Given the huge number of circuits in the microprocessor of any modern
computer, not every circuit can be manually checked before a computer model that contains the microprocessor is released."

There is internal contradiction between his statements.

Jimoney

Industry spokesperson: There is no chance of further
microprocessor design flaws, since all
microprocessors are now entirely computer designed.

Is that becasue computer designed circuit is not necessarily error free, so still not every circuit can be check and some will be liable to error?

If spoke person says "There is no chance of further microprocessor design flaws, since all
microprocessors are now entirely computer checked." Will that be sound in this case?

fredshen

以下是引用Jimoney在2006-9-21 20:17:00的发言：
Industry spokesperson: There is no chance of further
microprocessor design flaws, since all
microprocessors are now entirely computer designed.

Is that becasue computer designed circuit is not necessarily error free, so still not every circuit can be check and some will be liable to error?

If spoke person says "There is no chance of further microprocessor design flaws, since all
microprocessors are now entirely computer checked." Will that be sound in this case?

No, it's really not about the completeness of check to eliminate design flaw.

It's really because there is not gurantee that the computer that does the design is not flawed itself, since the spokeperson said the microprocessor of any modern computer is sbjuct to flaws.   

In the testing business, especially the computer based tester for comptuer chips, there always this pholosphical debate how the tester gets tested. It's a chicken and egg thing.

Also, this little dialogue really doesnt make any sense. It's really only set up to have internal contridiction. I hate LSAT does things like this.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-9-22 11:16:00编辑过]