<p>Common sense dictates that there's more to the human brain than problem solving and information processing, because with consciousness goes individuality, imagination, love of beauty, tears and laughter, heroism and cowardice, and occasionally artistic talent. Greatness in art and poetry carries with it an idiosyncratic, evocative, often irrational way of looking at the world and expressing its image, as in Paul Gauguin's paintings--which incorporate non-naturalistic colors and abstract figures--or Samuel Taylor Coleridge's dreamlike ballad, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." (19) Irish writer George Moore expressed the distinction best when he said that art is not mathematics, it's individuality. (20) Even so, artificial intelligence experts are brilliant at confounding any specific distinction between humans and computers that a layperson raises."</p>
<p>In George Moor's observation (lines 19-20), "mathematics" most likely refers to the
A. predictability of natural law
B. ability of humans to think creatively
C. workings of pure logic
D. simulation of human thought
E. manipulation of data by machines</p>
<p>What's the answer and explanation?</p>
<p>Is the answer C?</p>
<p>Immediately rule out B, D, and E.</p>
<p>You’re left with A and C. There’s no mention of natural law or prediction in the passage, so you can rule that out as well. Hence, C is the answer. Pure logic implies no individuality, and in the passage it is stated that math is not art, hence it lacks individuality.</p>
<p>Yeh, the answer is C. But the point of the sentence, to me, was to differentiate between artificial intelligence and human beings (after all, that’s the main idea). So, if George Moore says that “art” is not “mathematics”, he’d mean to say that “human beings” are not “computers”. So, in that line of thought, I eliminated C because computers don’t have “pure logic”. I was looking for an answer similar to this: “something universal (not unique, individual)”. The way a computer works is universally understood (not “idiosyncratic”).
It wouldn’t make sense to state that “art” is not “the workings of pure logic”, because logic is something attributable to human beings. Thus, according to my understanding: “human beings” are not “human beings”.
Or am I wrong? Is “pure logic” something attributable to a computer?</p>
<p>I’m not sure whether “pure logic” is attributable to a computer. My only advice is that you want to leave out your personal opinions and ideas when you’re taking the test. Technically, you used be able to find the answer with whatever’s just in the passage, so whether or not logic is attributable to computers or humans is irrelevant. </p>
<p>Hope this helps</p>