Passage Summary: Anders thinks we should copy the brain's physical layout to make smart computers. Yang disagrees, pointing out that airplanes don't look like birds, so copying the brain's layout probably won't work for computers either; we should focus on what the brain does, not how it's built.

Conclusion: Researchers would be more successful in creating thinking machines if they focused on the brain's function rather than its physical structure.

Reasoning: Just as successful aircraft are not modeled on the physical structure of birds, machines modeled on the physical structure of the brain are likely to fail.

Analysis: This is a 'Role in Argument' question, so we need to look at the structural relationship between the sentences. The statement in question is preceded by the indicator 'So' and followed by a final recommendation introduced by 'therefore.' This positioning tells us the statement is supported by the bird analogy and, in turn, provides support for the final conclusion. In LSAT terms, this makes it an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.