Compared with human capabilities, which statements about machines are generally accurate in the context of repetitive, well-specified tasks?

Introduction / Context:
Humans and machines excel at different kinds of work. Machines (including industrial robots and automated systems) thrive on repeatable, deterministic tasks with clear instructions and sensor feedback. Humans excel at open-ended reasoning, generalization, empathy, and improvisation. Understanding this distinction clarifies where automation adds value and where human judgment remains essential.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The comparison refers to structured, well-specified tasks in operational settings.
• Machines include robots, CNC tools, and automated information systems.
• We assess typical strengths and not edge-case research prototypes.

Concept / Approach:
Automation offers consistency and endurance. Machines can operate where heat, radiation, dust, vibration, or biohazards would be unsafe for humans, and when programmed and maintained correctly they commit fewer execution errors on repetitive routines. However, in unexpected circumstances requiring situational judgment, humans remain superior—today’s systems usually need predefined rules or retraining when the environment changes substantially.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Manufacturing, warehousing, and data-center operations all demonstrate higher consistency and endurance from automation, while human supervisors handle exceptions and continuous improvement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming zero errors from machines (they still fail due to sensors, calibration, or software bugs) and assuming humans are always worse at repetitive tasks despite learning curves and fatigue differences.

Final Answer:
(b) and (c).