I like think of this question of every stage as a parlay.
You can have a 9 leg parlay with -250 odds on each leg. Individually, they are all likely to hit (based on the odds at least), and yet when combined altogether the odds are +1966 and NOT -250.
Similar to each stage as described by JY. Each stage is (like his example) 90/10 odds. This does not mean that the mission to mars has a 90/10 of no failure, as probabilities do not work that way.
K this is a unique misunderstanding im hoping someone could help me with
what i am confused about is that the arguer said that at ANY GIVEN stage, the odds are unlikely. This is still true, no? he basically said, pick a stage, any stage, your odds of survival are pretty good at that stage. this is fair to conclude. if odds of survival at every stage is 90%, then at any stage surval is 90%, no?
Now I get that he is trying to say that survivability is higher for the whole trip and that why its a parts whole. but to call that the flaw is innaccurate because all hes trying to prove is that the claim that odds of survival are really low is EXAGGERATED. so all he has to do is show that the odds are not as grave as the critic claims for it to follow.
we dont know what the critic considered in arriving at his conclusion so we cant really assess this argument. but if the new information about the backup systems at each stage was not considered by the critic then this argument is fine. the backup system improves survivability at each stage. now, this alone is not enough to say that the WHOLE trip will BE LIKELY TO SURVIVE. but the arguer ISNT proving that. he is just saying that its exagerated.
Even if there were 1000 stages and survivabiliity was at a fraction of a percent, if this new information in the argument shows that survivability is just a tiny bit higher, then hes successfully proving that the critics claim is exaggerated.
Remember, he NEVER said that disaster is unlikely for the whole trip, but just at any given stage. I think that is true.
uhh I got this right because I figured surviving each stage wasn't the whole picture. if each stage is 10 years and there are 20 stages, it doesn't matter that each individual stage is survivable, everyone will still probably die (of old age) on the journey. thats how I got to the answer without thinking about probabilities at all.
if there's someone who's good at probability, pls do explain how the probability is 18.5%? figured i would learn some probability too in between all this
ngl this one was easy for me, I always look at the question before he explains and I felt great cuz he used the same explaining (very rare occasion). The way I figured this out was they were concered with the flight (WHOLE) but then reassured us by saying every componet (PART) was safe. I found the AC that addressed this and was the first one, I always read all of them even if Im sure about one just cuz (sometimes its my worst misteak)
My first thought was that it would be because they said the technology isn't developed enough which would render the backup system arguement as untrue. Barked up the wrong tree.
Why are your odds of survival 18.5%? Aren't your odds 0.9^8? Which is 43.1%, not 18.5%. 0.9^16 is 18.5%, but I don't see why you would double the exponent.
Breaking out the math on this is way overcomplicating it. Just memorize a list of the most common informal fallacies, and you'll be good. This argument commits the fallacy of composition, the opposite of the fallacy of division.
In Option E for analysis sake, doesn't the leading critic have an inadequate argument? He has limited support for his claim that it would be wrong to send explorers to Mars.
Very good lesson! The diagram in this one was particularly helpful. I tried to find the flaw in the stimulus before the video began and I was so stuck.
Would it mean the same thing as the the odds of something going wrong during whole journey (sum of the parts) because there are multiple instances where this could happen?
I thought the opposite of what was said, which is that the probability of parts (individually) are not the same the whole (combined).
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
51 comments
Hope this helps someone:
Op said : no big tech, no game.
Arg said: You yappin. We got a lil tech to help. We game.
Flaw: lil tech =/= big tech
Part of system =/= entire current tech available
I like think of this question of every stage as a parlay.
You can have a 9 leg parlay with -250 odds on each leg. Individually, they are all likely to hit (based on the odds at least), and yet when combined altogether the odds are +1966 and NOT -250.
Similar to each stage as described by JY. Each stage is (like his example) 90/10 odds. This does not mean that the mission to mars has a 90/10 of no failure, as probabilities do not work that way.
Hope this helps someone else understand.
K this is a unique misunderstanding im hoping someone could help me with
what i am confused about is that the arguer said that at ANY GIVEN stage, the odds are unlikely. This is still true, no? he basically said, pick a stage, any stage, your odds of survival are pretty good at that stage. this is fair to conclude. if odds of survival at every stage is 90%, then at any stage surval is 90%, no?
Now I get that he is trying to say that survivability is higher for the whole trip and that why its a parts whole. but to call that the flaw is innaccurate because all hes trying to prove is that the claim that odds of survival are really low is EXAGGERATED. so all he has to do is show that the odds are not as grave as the critic claims for it to follow.
we dont know what the critic considered in arriving at his conclusion so we cant really assess this argument. but if the new information about the backup systems at each stage was not considered by the critic then this argument is fine. the backup system improves survivability at each stage. now, this alone is not enough to say that the WHOLE trip will BE LIKELY TO SURVIVE. but the arguer ISNT proving that. he is just saying that its exagerated.
Even if there were 1000 stages and survivabiliity was at a fraction of a percent, if this new information in the argument shows that survivability is just a tiny bit higher, then hes successfully proving that the critics claim is exaggerated.
Remember, he NEVER said that disaster is unlikely for the whole trip, but just at any given stage. I think that is true.
Help me out pls
uhh I got this right because I figured surviving each stage wasn't the whole picture. if each stage is 10 years and there are 20 stages, it doesn't matter that each individual stage is survivable, everyone will still probably die (of old age) on the journey. thats how I got to the answer without thinking about probabilities at all.
unrelated but also related -
if there's someone who's good at probability, pls do explain how the probability is 18.5%? figured i would learn some probability too in between all this
hey so this was evil
bruh
and here is the violent humbling thanks lsat writers
Got this right but am commenting so i can review this for future reference
ngl this one was easy for me, I always look at the question before he explains and I felt great cuz he used the same explaining (very rare occasion). The way I figured this out was they were concered with the flight (WHOLE) but then reassured us by saying every componet (PART) was safe. I found the AC that addressed this and was the first one, I always read all of them even if Im sure about one just cuz (sometimes its my worst misteak)
every given stage (whole) v. any given stage (part)
damn I did not have a fun time w this one
im gonna cry and make the lsat test makers watch
My first thought was that it would be because they said the technology isn't developed enough which would render the backup system arguement as untrue. Barked up the wrong tree.
#help
Why are your odds of survival 18.5%? Aren't your odds 0.9^8? Which is 43.1%, not 18.5%. 0.9^16 is 18.5%, but I don't see why you would double the exponent.
I'm not a violent person. But I'd be lying if I said the feeling of punching my monitor did not cross my mind. ._.
But I think I know why I got it wrong. I overlooked the step of finding the conclusion. ;_;
Breaking out the math on this is way overcomplicating it. Just memorize a list of the most common informal fallacies, and you'll be good. This argument commits the fallacy of composition, the opposite of the fallacy of division.
Wow, my math degree was actually useful for once!
I am torn between skipping these lvl 5s and spending immense amount of time to MAYBE get them.
honestly in this question. ACs B, C and D all say the same thing. and E is just wrong. so i should've gotten to A from POE
Do AC's of the "inadequate argument" persuasion always fall short of being correct for Flaw questions? i.e. can they always be eliminated for POE?
In Option E for analysis sake, doesn't the leading critic have an inadequate argument? He has limited support for his claim that it would be wrong to send explorers to Mars.
Very good lesson! The diagram in this one was particularly helpful. I tried to find the flaw in the stimulus before the video began and I was so stuck.
As a non math person I would have never gotten this question correct
without this lesson
Would it mean the same thing as the the odds of something going wrong during whole journey (sum of the parts) because there are multiple instances where this could happen?
I thought the opposite of what was said, which is that the probability of parts (individually) are not the same the whole (combined).