Passage Summary: Anders argues that because the brain's structure is important for thinking, computers should be built like brains. Yang counters that 'important' isn't the same as 'essential,' using the example of birds and planes to suggest that function matters more than physical form.

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

Reasoning: The argument relies on an analogy: since aircraft succeeded by ignoring the physical structure of birds, computer scientists should ignore the physical structure of the brain.

Analysis: To evaluate this argument, we must test the strength of the analogy Yang uses. Yang assumes that the relationship between brain structure and thinking is similar to the relationship between bird structure and flight. If it turns out that thinking is uniquely tied to biological structure in a way that flight is not, the analogy falls apart. Look for an answer choice that asks whether the physical structure of the brain is actually a requirement for the function of thinking to occur.