Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Main Conclusions

Read the following argument concerning technological regulation:

'Some legal scholars contend that imposing strict liability on software developers for algorithmic bias will irreparably hinder the advancement of artificial intelligence. This apprehension, however, is fundamentally misguided. The history of technological regulation demonstrates that strict liability frameworks actually accelerate innovation by forcing industries to standardize safety protocols. Furthermore, because standardized safety protocols inevitably increase public trust in emerging technologies, strict liability is ultimately beneficial to the software industry. Therefore, to ensure the long-term viability of artificial intelligence, regulatory agencies must implement strict liability standards for algorithmic development.'

Which structural role does each of the following excerpts play within the argument?

  • "...imposing strict liability on software developers... will irreparably hinder the advancement of artificial intelligence"A viewpoint that the author attempts to undermine.
  • "...strict liability frameworks actually accelerate innovation by forcing industries to standardize safety protocols"A premise used to directly support a subsidiary conclusion.
  • "...strict liability is ultimately beneficial to the software industry"A subsidiary conclusion that serves as a premise for the overall conclusion.
  • "...regulatory agencies must implement strict liability standards for algorithmic development"The overall main conclusion of the argument.

Answer

The excerpt regarding hindering AI advancement pairs with the undermined viewpoint. The excerpt regarding accelerating innovation pairs with a premise supporting an intermediate conclusion. The excerpt stating strict liability is beneficial pairs with the subsidiary conclusion. The excerpt recommending regulatory action pairs with the main conclusion.
The argument structurally unfolds by presenting an opposing view (Excerpt 1), refuting it using foundational premises (Excerpt 2), drawing an intermediate conclusion from those premises (Excerpt 3), and using that intermediate conclusion to justify the ultimate recommendation, which is the main conclusion (Excerpt 4).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the author's primary goal in writing the stimulus.
The author wants to prove that regulatory agencies should implement strict liability standards.
This is the ultimate recommendation that is supported by all other statements in the argument.
2
Analyze the relationship between the supporting statements.
The claims about accelerating innovation and increasing public trust are used to prove that strict liability is 'ultimately beneficial.'
This structural relationship establishes 'ultimately beneficial' as an intermediate conclusion, which then acts as a premise for the main conclusion.
3
Determine the role of the opening sentence.
It presents a concern held by 'some legal scholars' that the author explicitly calls 'fundamentally misguided.'
The author introduces this opposing view merely to refute it and build their own counter-argument.

Key Concept

Identifying Argument Structure and Main Conclusions
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions

More questions from this topic