one analogy I thought of was a sports team. Let's say that each individual is "well-skilled" at their position, the team together could still not be well as a whole.
#feedback The explanation on this question was incredible. Loved the chart outlining why the percent risk at each stage does not equal the percent risk overall.
"Guys, you're still trying to replace Giambi. I told you we can't do it, and we can't do it. Now, what we might be able to do is re-create him. Re-create him in the aggregate."
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.
@Lizeth13 the individual explanation why B is wrong makes more sense. In that they they're implying that it's not gonna happen but they didn't say that so we can't call it a flaw.
@Lizeth13 The way I saw it was OPA says unlikely and argument says unlikely. Answer choice B says cannot occur and unlikely to occur. Cannot occur and unlikely are not the same so B is wrong
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.
I'm glad you explained this because it makes perfect sense now, but I'm sure if I tried this problem on my own first I never would've realized this flaw!! Hopefully I will be able to see it in the future now
On one coin you guess Heads. Great. You are right! That was a 50% chance.
Second coin you have another 50% chance of getting it right.
BUT.
On the whole, to get all 4 coins guessed right, you have a 1/16 or 0.0625 chance of getting all 4 coins heads up, or all coins tails up.
That is the part-to-whole flaw. You have a higher probability of getting the parts right, flipping one coin, BUT you have a low probability that the WHOLE (4 coins heads up) right.
This is a great conceptual example of a part to whole flaw involving the probability of an event in multiple stages, but it has a math error and a language error I just have to nitpick! The chances of survival is NOT the odds. In a frequentist model, odds are the ratio of the times an event occurs over its complement (success over failure). The Probability (or if you want a more casual term, chance) of an event occuring is the ratio of the the event occurring over all trials. Ping is attempting to calculate a probability, but calling it odds. It's also the wrong probability. 8 trials with P success = 0.9 is 0.9 ^ 8 which is about 0.43, or 43 percent. We can find out how many trials it takes to get that probability down to 18.5%, with log base 0.9 of 0.185. That's 16 tries. Obviously you don't need the math for the LSAT, but I would suggest it be fixed in the text at least :) Switch odds to chance or probability, and switch 18.5% to 43% (or the number of stages from 8 to 16).
74 comments
im gonna cry and make the lsat test makers watch
Don't give them what they want
one analogy I thought of was a sports team. Let's say that each individual is "well-skilled" at their position, the team together could still not be well as a whole.
This is a great analogy, thank you for this!
#feedback The explanation on this question was incredible. Loved the chart outlining why the percent risk at each stage does not equal the percent risk overall.
yeah this was a great lesson
I agree. Dice example was so helpful too.
hey so this was evil
and here is the violent humbling thanks lsat writers
Could see how this would be a tuff question with no practice. Great lesson, JY!
you've made an enemy out of me..
"Guys, you're still trying to replace Giambi. I told you we can't do it, and we can't do it. Now, what we might be able to do is re-create him. Re-create him in the aggregate."
goated movie
that one was tricky
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.
Interesting. Where can I find such a list?
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions.html
here are a couple but there are honestly so many - as long as you can get used to knowing where they are/how to spot them you'll be good!
@nicolesteinberg133 This is so helpful - thank you! Happy studying :)
As a non math person I would have never gotten this question correct
without this lesson
OH HEYYY HARRY
every given stage (whole) v. any given stage (part)
Sometimes the LSAT has really interesting questions.
B sounded so right 😩
@Lizeth13 the individual explanation why B is wrong makes more sense. In that they they're implying that it's not gonna happen but they didn't say that so we can't call it a flaw.
@Lizeth13 The way I saw it was OPA says unlikely and argument says unlikely. Answer choice B says cannot occur and unlikely to occur. Cannot occur and unlikely are not the same so B is wrong
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.
@LowOriginalConnection type of thing i put the last $3.27 in my account on. (that lowkey helped so much)
@LowOriginalConnection this so helpful ty
bruh
damn I did not have a fun time w this one
How frequent are these types of questions?
I'm glad you explained this because it makes perfect sense now, but I'm sure if I tried this problem on my own first I never would've realized this flaw!! Hopefully I will be able to see it in the future now
This flaw is basically a flaw of probability.
Say you have 4 coins.
On one coin you guess Heads. Great. You are right! That was a 50% chance.
Second coin you have another 50% chance of getting it right.
BUT.
On the whole, to get all 4 coins guessed right, you have a 1/16 or 0.0625 chance of getting all 4 coins heads up, or all coins tails up.
That is the part-to-whole flaw. You have a higher probability of getting the parts right, flipping one coin, BUT you have a low probability that the WHOLE (4 coins heads up) right.
ugh why does this feel like math...I chose lawyer bcs I hate math ....
This is a great conceptual example of a part to whole flaw involving the probability of an event in multiple stages, but it has a math error and a language error I just have to nitpick! The chances of survival is NOT the odds. In a frequentist model, odds are the ratio of the times an event occurs over its complement (success over failure). The Probability (or if you want a more casual term, chance) of an event occuring is the ratio of the the event occurring over all trials. Ping is attempting to calculate a probability, but calling it odds. It's also the wrong probability. 8 trials with P success = 0.9 is 0.9 ^ 8 which is about 0.43, or 43 percent. We can find out how many trials it takes to get that probability down to 18.5%, with log base 0.9 of 0.185. That's 16 tries. Obviously you don't need the math for the LSAT, but I would suggest it be fixed in the text at least :) Switch odds to chance or probability, and switch 18.5% to 43% (or the number of stages from 8 to 16).
@dh2303 Unless 7Sage went ahead with an edit, the text does say 43%.
@PowerUp_Tutoring they did :)
Got this right but am commenting so i can review this for future reference
"The rooms interact with each other."
That's why I wish we'd see all five answers.
great argument
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
@M1ckeymina u might be the goat why did this actually help