s_allard wrote:« I have to admit that I have given this much thought. I’ve heard a lot about it in the mainstream media but since I don’t have a technical background in the field I’m frankly sort of clueless about the whole thing. That said, I would think we have to start by defining thinking, intelligence and the various kinds of intelligence. Then how can we make artificial forms of these intelligences. Did you have particular concerns that you would want to share ? »
If I were a language examiner, I would say that an answer like that demonstrates a pretty good mastery of the language. There’s probably not much point in continuing.
This is an evasion strategy. And I understand the DELF/DALF examiners, for example, are specifically trained to notice these evasions, and to either deduct points for them, or to come at the topic from another direction. Otherwise students would just prepare and rehearse 20 different bits of boilerplate, plug in words, and ace the exams. They do actually expect you talk about the topic that got picked.
In the middle of my exam, one of the examiners asked a question about a genuine weakness in my proposal. I was frustrated, and I spontaneously replied, "Je ne peux pas résoudre tous les problèmes du monde aujourd'hui!" And the interviewing examiner laughed, while the silent note-taking examiner made a note. Oops. I don't think she was giving me points for that response, although it was fluent enough.
On a good exam, the examiners aren't just looking at 120 seconds of speech and seeing whether it sounds smooth. There's a specific set of things they want to see you do. From the CEFR levels:
B2. Can develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant
supporting detail.
Can develop a clear argument, expanding and supporting their points of view at some length with
subsidiary points and relevant examples.
Can construct a chain of reasoned argument.
Can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
[...]
Can take a series of follow-up questions with a degree of fluency and spontaneity which poses no strain for
either themselves or the audience.
So if we look at the response you proposed, it does not include an argument. There is no supporting detail. There are no examples. There is no discussion of the advantages and disadvantages. However, you do ask for followup questions, so that's good.
In most European countries, CEFR exams are used as a gateway to citizenship, to university, and to other real-world goals. Which is why they're typically so focused on using language to accomplish specific tasks.
Anyway, this argument isn't going to change anyone's mind this time, either.