Passage Summary: We shouldn't trust a math proof unless a person can double-check every single part of it; because some computer proofs are way too big for any human to check, we have to reject them.

Conclusion: Computer-assisted mathematical proofs that involve an astronomical number of instances should be rejected.

Reasoning: Theorems should only be accepted if every step is independently verified, but humans are incapable of reviewing the massive number of steps involved in these specific computer-assisted proofs.

Analysis: The argument contains a significant gap regarding who or what can perform the 'independent verification.' It assumes that if a human cannot verify the steps, then the steps cannot be verified at all. To make the conclusion necessary, the author must assume that verification by another computer or a non-human entity is either impossible or insufficient. Look for an answer that bridges the requirement for verification with the specific necessity of human review. If we find that a computer *could* validly verify another computer's work, the argument's requirement for rejection would vanish.