| 129. Behind the hope that computers can replace teachers is the idea that the student’s understanding of the subject being taught consists in knowing facts and rules, the job of a teacher being to make the facts and rules explicit and convey them to the students, either by practice drills or by coaching. If that were indeed the way the mind works, the teacher could transfer facts and rules to the computer, which could replace the teacher as drillmaster and coach. But since understanding does not consist merely of knowing facts and rules, but of the grasp of the general concepts underlying them, the hope that the computer will eventually replace the teacher is fundamentally misguided.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the author’s conclusion that computers will not eventually be able to replace teachers?
A. Computers are as good as teachers at drilling students on facts and rules. B. The job of a teacher is to make students understand the general concepts underlying specific facts and rules. C. It is possible to program computers so that they can teach the understanding of general concepts that underlie specific facts and rules. D. Because they are not subject to human error, computers are better than teachers at conveying facts and rules. E. It is not possible for students to develop an understanding of the concepts underlying facts and rules through practice drills and coaching. 请问（e）为何是支持，想不明白… 文中又说the job of a teacher being to make the facts and rules explicit and convey them to the students, either by practice drills or by coaching.
而（e）中说学生不能通过practice drills and coaching这两种方式来理解概念，这说明老师的所用也没有使学生能来理解概念，那么等同于老师和电脑都不能够使学生理解概念，那么则应该削弱了。为什么不对呢？ | 
