Thanks for the question! In this stimulus, we have an exchange between two individuals. Anders first makes the claim that the physical structure of the brain is important when it comes to thinking, so it should be considered by people developing “thinking machines,†which are basically computers that can perform thought-like functions.
Yang then gives a counterexample, saying that flying machines closely modeled on birds have failed, and researchers should focus on the brain’s function, not its physical structure. The question asks us for something that would help us evaluate Yang’s argument. One thing that might help us evaluate his counterexample is knowing if those flying machines closely modeled on birds helped us develop machines currently able to fly. This is what (A) tells us. If studies of the physical structure of birds still contributed in some way to the development of workable aircraft, then analogously, studies of the physical structure of the brain might contribute to these thinking machines, even if they aren’t closely modeled on the brain. If not, then Yang might be right, and we can ignore the physical structure.
(B) is incorrect because the question of what exactly thinking is defined as isn’t important to Yang’s argument because regardless of what thinking is, Yang doesn’t think that the physical structure of the brain should be considered when developing the thinking machines.
(C) is incorrect because the amount of time spend building both doesn’t help or hurt Yang’s argument. One could be more complicated than the other; we can’t really conclude much from the times if we knew them.
(D) is incorrect because it’s not relevant to Yang’s argument if there are researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain working on the thinking machines. Yang’s point is that the structure of the brain is basically irrelevant because of the bird analogy.
(E) is incorrect because even if it were true that some flying machines that were not closely modeled on birds failed to work, it wouldn’t be strong enough evidence for us to conclude that we should model thinking machines on brains, especially since we know that no flying machines closely modeled on birds has worked as well. Some means “at least one†on the LSAT, and so we can’t make many inferences from this statement that help us evaluate Yang’s argument. Hope this helps!
