Many archaeologists will tell you that categorizing excavated fragments of pottery by style, period, and what objects they belong to...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Many archaeologists will tell you that categorizing excavated fragments of pottery by style, period, and what objects they belong to relies not only on standard criteria, but also on instinct developed over years of practice. In a recent study, however, researchers trained a deep-learning computer model on thousands of images of pottery fragments and found that it could categorize them as accurately as a team of expert archaeologists. Some archaeologists have expressed concern that they might be replaced by such computer models, but the researchers claim that outcome is highly unlikely.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the researchers' claim?
In the researchers' study, the model was able to categorize the pottery fragments much more quickly than the archaeologists could.
In the researchers' study, neither the model nor the archeologists were able to accurately categorize all the pottery fragments that were presented.
A survey of archaeologists showed that categorizing pottery fragments limits the amount of time they can dedicate to other important tasks that only human experts can do.
A survey of archaeologists showed that few of them received dedicated training in how to properly categorize pottery fragments.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Many archaeologists will tell you that categorizing excavated fragments of pottery by style, period, and what objects they belong to relies not only on standard criteria, but also on instinct developed over years of practice.' |
|
| 'In a recent study, however, researchers trained a deep-learning computer model on thousands of images of pottery fragments and found that it could categorize them as accurately as a team of expert archaeologists.' |
|
| 'Some archaeologists have expressed concern that they might be replaced by such computer models, but the researchers claim that outcome is highly unlikely.' |
|
Part B: Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While AI can now categorize pottery fragments as accurately as expert archaeologists, researchers believe human replacement is highly unlikely despite archaeologists' concerns.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes that pottery categorization traditionally requires human expertise and instinct, then presents new evidence that computer models can match this accuracy. This creates a tension between archaeologists who fear replacement and researchers who dismiss this possibility.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? We need to find evidence that would support the researchers' claim that archaeologists won't be replaced by computer models.
What type of answer do we need? A finding or piece of evidence that makes replacement unlikely, despite the computer model's equal accuracy.
Any limiting keywords? 'Most directly support' means we need the strongest evidence specifically for the researchers' position.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The researchers need to defend their claim that replacement is 'highly unlikely' even though the AI matches human accuracy
- For this to be true, there must be something valuable that archaeologists do beyond just categorizing pottery fragments
- The right answer should show that archaeologists have other important responsibilities that only humans can handle, making them irreplaceable despite AI's categorization abilities
In the researchers' study, the model was able to categorize the pottery fragments much more quickly than the archaeologists could.
- Speed advantage doesn't address replacement concerns
- Even if AI is faster, this could actually support replacement arguments
- Doesn't explain why archaeologists remain necessary
In the researchers' study, neither the model nor the archeologists were able to accurately categorize all the pottery fragments that were presented.
- Shows both AI and humans have limitations in categorization
- Doesn't provide reasons why humans would remain irreplaceable
- Actually suggests neither approach is perfect
A survey of archaeologists showed that categorizing pottery fragments limits the amount of time they can dedicate to other important tasks that only human experts can do.
- Shows pottery categorization limits archaeologists' time for other crucial work
- Implies there are 'important tasks that only human experts can do'
- If AI handles categorization, archaeologists could focus on uniquely human work
- Directly supports why replacement is unlikely - humans have irreplaceable roles
A survey of archaeologists showed that few of them received dedicated training in how to properly categorize pottery fragments.
- Suggests archaeologists lack proper training in categorization
- Actually weakens their position rather than supporting their irreplaceability
- Could support arguments for AI replacement if humans aren't well-trained