I don't understand, if you're the team most likely to win wouldn't that mean that you have a great chance of winning? Because you're competing with the other teams and they have lower chances of winning so shouldn't you be beating their odds? In sports games there has to be a winner after all it's not optional for there to be no winners
I see why it looks odd, but I can help you explain.
Many sports leagues have pre-season talks about who will win the league. Let's say the Patriots with Tom Brady are the best team in the NFL.
The best team is the most likely team to win the NFL. Does that mean that they have a >50% chance of winning the NFL? No. It just means that out of all the teams, they have the highest chance of winning. That chance could be (and typically is) around the 10% to 30% mark.
Being the most likely to win does not mean you are actually likely to win.
@KelechiChukwuemeka however doesn't being most likely to win mean you are actually likely to win? Because if you are most likely to win doesn't that mean that you're better than the competitors so you'll likely win? If you're most likely to win but you're not actually likely to win then who is likely to win?
@WendyCurrington your last question is still a comparison, because you are still basically saying"if you are most likely to win, you are more likely THAN OTHERS to win. think about it in an absolute way: lets say this team has a 30% chance of winning, and every other team has less than 30% chance of winning. sure this team is more likely THAN other teams to win(30% > 20%? 10%?) , but this team also has 70% chance of NOT WINNING (100%-30%). so for this team alone, its chance of NOT winning is actually greater than winning (70% > 30%), you can't say this team is certainly going to win because its chance of not winning is 70%
@JiayiZeng right that makes sense however if the team with 30% chance of winning isn't certainly going to win then who is going to win then? If the team with the highest probability of winning doesn't win then who's the winner? In sports you can't have no winners right someone has to be a winner
@WendyCurrington The point is that the team, while it may have the highest chance, is not x>50%. There will be a winner, but the overwhelming case, in your example, is that 70% of the time it will be another team, any team that is not yours.
The answer to the question is that it is not more likely for the given event to happen than not happen.
Two things can be true in this situation: that Team A has the greatest chance amongst everyone, and that Team A is still unlikely in totality to win. Let me present this like a lottery. Pretend a lottery has 1000 tickets. You buy 100 tickets, and 900 other people buy a single ticket. You have the most tickets by far. In a 1-1 comparison between you and any given individual, it is overwhelmingly more likely that you will win rather than they. However, the comparison is not you and one other. The comparison is you and your 100 tickets vs the 900 others. This is a 10% vs 90% situation. Yes, you have the greatest chance out of ANY GIVEN individual to win the lottery, but it is still VERY likely that you will not win it.
@mburgos thank you for your response however in sports there has to be a winner it's not possible for no one to win. If the team most likely to win doesn't win then who does? Well it's possible for another team who was less likely to win then you to beat you correct?
@WendyCurrington That's exactly correct. The point is that it's very possible that another team, with a smaller probabilistic chance than you, will win.
To give one more illustration. There are often upsets in sports. Teams that are predicted to have the highest chance of winning the whole thing are beat by "worse" teams. It is then possible that one of these "worse" teams will win the whole thing who, initially, had a lower probability of winning.
Thought E wasn't good enough of an answer--I thought the argument failed to consider that having the best players DOES NOT guarantee your team will be the best, and so you don't know if your team is the most likely to win the championship. And the way I translated E into the stimulus was that it was pointing at the weakness of the premise that the best team is most likely to win and only at that weakness.
I thought C was better targeted at not only the weird premise but also the sub-conclusion of that team being the best team.
Truthfully, both sucked and I still don't think E is good enough of an answer :p
@tortellinibrain The 'best players = best team' argument is definitely flawed, but it's only a premise/sub-conclusion to the argument's main conclusion: that the club will be champions this year. E targets that main conclusion by identifying the possibility/probability flaw. C isn't descriptively accurate as the prediction isn't based on the comparison itself but on the probability of the team to win, and you could also possibly argue that the outcome isn't definitely predicted, which would also make C incorrect.
C is so mean. So, in addition to describing things the argument simply isn't doing, wrong answers can also describe things the argument is doing, but just doesn't happen to be the flaw. Okay, got it memorized
I understand the lottery analogy but im having trouble applying it to this specific example. If a sports team is most likely to win then why is it not more likely to win than not? (most being more than 50%, more likely than not at least 51% compared to 49%), it just seems like in this case they should represent the same thing.
Think of it as a particular sports team being the most likely to win the championship in a given league i.e. Team A has a 30% chance, Team B and C each have a 20% chance, and each of the other teams have less than a 10% chance. There is a small but important bit of phrasing in the stimulus that distinguishes between your interpretation and the interpretation required to understand this question. See here the difference:
...since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship...
...since the best team in the city will most likely win the city championship...
The former is the true stimulus found in this question, stating that, of the teams in the city, the author's club is the one most likely to win. We would take the latter to mean what you stated in your comment.
#help so if one of the premises to subconclusion reasoning is flawed, we ignore it? Does the flawed reasoning always need to be because of the conclusion?
That’s my understanding of it — we take all the premises (including major premises/sub-conclusions) to be true, and the reasoning that we are attacking in flaw Qs has to be between premises and MAIN conclusion
No, sometimes the correct AC will be referring to the sub-conclusion. The only reason for ignoring the SC’s flaw (part-to-whole) in this question is that none of the ACs described the part-to-whole flaw. If an AC had said something like presumes that an entity is the best on the basis of each of its components being the best, we would have a problem, because we would have two right answers.
#feedback I know this may be just to my taste but I do feel it would be a bit beneficial if we had all the answer choices revealed to us and a minute or two to decide which is the correct answer then get to watch JY break everything down. It encourages me to use my own thought process and apply what I've learned and then compare to what I am learning from. Perhaps it would help others do the same. Just a thought!
I felt the same way lol. But if you click "quick view" at the top it shows the question with all the answer choices so you can try it out before playing the video.
Does E require assuming that there are more than 2 teams? Or is there something in the wording of the question that excludes it, because it can invalidate E as far as I can tell.
If there are 3 teams, E obviously applies. Authors team could have a 34% chance, team B could have 33% chance, team C could have 33% chance (satisfies most likely of a set of events, three events with 34% vs 33% vs 33% chances), then the authors team is not more likely to win than not (because not greater than 50%).
But if there are only 2 teams and the authors team has a 51% chance of winning (satisfies most likely of a set of events, two events with 51% vs 49% chances), then the authors team winning is in fact more likely to win than not (because greater than 50%).
It's not our job to prove that the conclusion is false. It's the author's job to prove that their conclusion is true. All we have to do is point out why the author's conclusion doesn't have to be true based on their premises. So we're pointing out that the author's overlooking the possibility that there are more than 2 teams.
Can anyone explain the flaw in a different way? The lotto example he gives makes sense to me, whereas teams competing does not.
In the lottery ticket example, it makes sense that even though someone has double the odds of winning in comparison to everyone else, they still have an extremely low chance of winning... I guess because of amount of tickets bought and that its random.
Whereas in the team example, even if a lot of teams are competing, if I have the best quality team, and the team thats the best is most likely to win, why is it flawed to conclude that my team will "almost certainly" win? Is it because "almost certainly" is basically saying guaranteed? Or some other issue with probability?
okay so, I did some digging (mostly on powerscore) and here's what I've got.
Consider an example where 4 teams are playing. Team A,B,C,D.
Team A has a 35% chance of winning and this is a higher chance than any other team. Say the other ones each have an equal chance of roughly 22% of winning.
So we can say that Team A is most likely to win.
Now here's where we struggle... We concluded that if team A has a higher chance relative to the other teams to win, then team A is most likely to win.
However, note that team A has a 65% chance of NOT winning! There's a 65% chance of any other team winning (B,C, or D).
Therefore, it is not true that team A is most likely to win.
The truth is that team A is more likely to win compared to any other team playing
BUT team A is not more likely to win than not. Team A is more likely to lose than win.
Like Shadiiii pointed out, just because you are most likely to win does not mean that winning is almost certainly guaranteed.
Most likely to win could literally mean a having a 26% chance of winning while all the other teams have a 25% chance of winning or lower. In short, the word most is relative to the other teams and their chances.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
77 comments
where was peicemeal analysis explained? It seems like I just started being told to use it without a substantial explanation on how.
UGA is 65% more likely to win the quarterfinal game against Ole Miss, UGA will almost certainly win the game and advance onto the semi finals.
I cannot make that conclusion because the likelihood=/= certainty.
Obviously... bc we lost... 💔
@Nicoled its okay lol. Go Dawgs anyways
@Nicoled go Rebs
I don't understand, if you're the team most likely to win wouldn't that mean that you have a great chance of winning? Because you're competing with the other teams and they have lower chances of winning so shouldn't you be beating their odds? In sports games there has to be a winner after all it's not optional for there to be no winners
@WendyCurrington
I see why it looks odd, but I can help you explain.
Many sports leagues have pre-season talks about who will win the league. Let's say the Patriots with Tom Brady are the best team in the NFL.
The best team is the most likely team to win the NFL. Does that mean that they have a >50% chance of winning the NFL? No. It just means that out of all the teams, they have the highest chance of winning. That chance could be (and typically is) around the 10% to 30% mark.
Being the most likely to win does not mean you are actually likely to win.
@KelechiChukwuemeka thank you so much for your response!
@KelechiChukwuemeka however doesn't being most likely to win mean you are actually likely to win? Because if you are most likely to win doesn't that mean that you're better than the competitors so you'll likely win? If you're most likely to win but you're not actually likely to win then who is likely to win?
@WendyCurrington your last question is still a comparison, because you are still basically saying"if you are most likely to win, you are more likely THAN OTHERS to win. think about it in an absolute way: lets say this team has a 30% chance of winning, and every other team has less than 30% chance of winning. sure this team is more likely THAN other teams to win(30% > 20%? 10%?) , but this team also has 70% chance of NOT WINNING (100%-30%). so for this team alone, its chance of NOT winning is actually greater than winning (70% > 30%), you can't say this team is certainly going to win because its chance of not winning is 70%
@JiayiZeng right that makes sense however if the team with 30% chance of winning isn't certainly going to win then who is going to win then? If the team with the highest probability of winning doesn't win then who's the winner? In sports you can't have no winners right someone has to be a winner
@WendyCurrington The point is that the team, while it may have the highest chance, is not x>50%. There will be a winner, but the overwhelming case, in your example, is that 70% of the time it will be another team, any team that is not yours.
The answer to the question is that it is not more likely for the given event to happen than not happen.
Two things can be true in this situation: that Team A has the greatest chance amongst everyone, and that Team A is still unlikely in totality to win. Let me present this like a lottery. Pretend a lottery has 1000 tickets. You buy 100 tickets, and 900 other people buy a single ticket. You have the most tickets by far. In a 1-1 comparison between you and any given individual, it is overwhelmingly more likely that you will win rather than they. However, the comparison is not you and one other. The comparison is you and your 100 tickets vs the 900 others. This is a 10% vs 90% situation. Yes, you have the greatest chance out of ANY GIVEN individual to win the lottery, but it is still VERY likely that you will not win it.
@mburgos thank you for your response however in sports there has to be a winner it's not possible for no one to win. If the team most likely to win doesn't win then who does? Well it's possible for another team who was less likely to win then you to beat you correct?
@WendyCurrington That's exactly correct. The point is that it's very possible that another team, with a smaller probabilistic chance than you, will win.
To give one more illustration. There are often upsets in sports. Teams that are predicted to have the highest chance of winning the whole thing are beat by "worse" teams. It is then possible that one of these "worse" teams will win the whole thing who, initially, had a lower probability of winning.
@mburgos thank you so much for your time I really appreciate it! You helped me so much
Because I have excelled an all and every part of the LSAT including all of its question types, I will therefore succeed on the LSAT itself.
LSAT is more than the combination of its parts (unfortunate).
@CaseyLiu Me no like sound of that
Couldn't E be true if there are only two teams in the city? I know the stimulus never states that, but are we just assuming there aren't?
and we need to be able to decipher that within 1:05-1:15 :\
@edward.ratkoczy preferably yes or shorter
Was down to C and E.
Thought E wasn't good enough of an answer--I thought the argument failed to consider that having the best players DOES NOT guarantee your team will be the best, and so you don't know if your team is the most likely to win the championship. And the way I translated E into the stimulus was that it was pointing at the weakness of the premise that the best team is most likely to win and only at that weakness.
I thought C was better targeted at not only the weird premise but also the sub-conclusion of that team being the best team.
Truthfully, both sucked and I still don't think E is good enough of an answer :p
@tortellinibrain The 'best players = best team' argument is definitely flawed, but it's only a premise/sub-conclusion to the argument's main conclusion: that the club will be champions this year. E targets that main conclusion by identifying the possibility/probability flaw. C isn't descriptively accurate as the prediction isn't based on the comparison itself but on the probability of the team to win, and you could also possibly argue that the outcome isn't definitely predicted, which would also make C incorrect.
what was this question dawg
Are the test writers PSG fans lol
@iliananunez16575 lol, I know what you mean!! last time I remember they had MESSI, Mbappe, and Neymar up front yet underwhelming team overall
AHHHHH I have to review this one im starring it
where did you get your shoes?
LMAO
These last few questions have been destroying me LOL
C is so mean. So, in addition to describing things the argument simply isn't doing, wrong answers can also describe things the argument is doing, but just doesn't happen to be the flaw. Okay, got it memorized
@cmhrandall593 this messed me up.
Does anyone know what makes certain questions optional? I still watch them but is it just that its not as common for something like this to show up?
lol chatgpt said C is the correct answer
I really feel like you shouldn't be using chatgpt
lololol
If you use the LSAT Study GPT it has been getting all the right answers for me
(P): A student uses chatGPT to answer practice LSATs and got a good score. Therefore, when he takes the LSAT, he will also get a good score.
Find the major flaw in the philosophers reasoning:
I understand the lottery analogy but im having trouble applying it to this specific example. If a sports team is most likely to win then why is it not more likely to win than not? (most being more than 50%, more likely than not at least 51% compared to 49%), it just seems like in this case they should represent the same thing.
Think of it as a particular sports team being the most likely to win the championship in a given league i.e. Team A has a 30% chance, Team B and C each have a 20% chance, and each of the other teams have less than a 10% chance. There is a small but important bit of phrasing in the stimulus that distinguishes between your interpretation and the interpretation required to understand this question. See here the difference:
...since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship...
...since the best team in the city will most likely win the city championship...
The former is the true stimulus found in this question, stating that, of the teams in the city, the author's club is the one most likely to win. We would take the latter to mean what you stated in your comment.
Hope this helps!
When it comes to these lessons I try and solve the question before listening to the lesson and the explanation glad I got this on the first try.
I do this too. However, knowing what type of flaw is being tested (in this case whole vs part) can be a strong leg up in picking the right answer.
this got me this time
Having issues wrapping my head around relative v. absolute probability. Will most likely have to default to PoE.
I need to stop trying to get into law school and just buy a bunch of lottery tickets! 🥹
If you buy enough tickets, you'll be the most likely to win. Therefore you'll almost certainly win ;)
OMG I might actually remember this on test day lol
WE ARE SO BACK
Cut the choices down to B and C and saw that I was so wrong lmao. I’m just gonna keep pushing lol.
#help so if one of the premises to subconclusion reasoning is flawed, we ignore it? Does the flawed reasoning always need to be because of the conclusion?
That’s my understanding of it — we take all the premises (including major premises/sub-conclusions) to be true, and the reasoning that we are attacking in flaw Qs has to be between premises and MAIN conclusion
No, sometimes the correct AC will be referring to the sub-conclusion. The only reason for ignoring the SC’s flaw (part-to-whole) in this question is that none of the ACs described the part-to-whole flaw. If an AC had said something like presumes that an entity is the best on the basis of each of its components being the best, we would have a problem, because we would have two right answers.
#feedback I know this may be just to my taste but I do feel it would be a bit beneficial if we had all the answer choices revealed to us and a minute or two to decide which is the correct answer then get to watch JY break everything down. It encourages me to use my own thought process and apply what I've learned and then compare to what I am learning from. Perhaps it would help others do the same. Just a thought!
I felt the same way lol. But if you click "quick view" at the top it shows the question with all the answer choices so you can try it out before playing the video.
or at least put the lsat question number so I can find it first and do it
You can find it in the URL of these lessons!
For this one: https://7sage.com/lesson/flaw-lesson-8-pt65-s4-q26/?ss_completed_lesson=41783
Prep Test 65
Section 4
Question 26
Someone pointed it out on a previous section and it blew my mind lol
Does E require assuming that there are more than 2 teams? Or is there something in the wording of the question that excludes it, because it can invalidate E as far as I can tell.
If there are 3 teams, E obviously applies. Authors team could have a 34% chance, team B could have 33% chance, team C could have 33% chance (satisfies most likely of a set of events, three events with 34% vs 33% vs 33% chances), then the authors team is not more likely to win than not (because not greater than 50%).
But if there are only 2 teams and the authors team has a 51% chance of winning (satisfies most likely of a set of events, two events with 51% vs 49% chances), then the authors team winning is in fact more likely to win than not (because greater than 50%).
It's not our job to prove that the conclusion is false. It's the author's job to prove that their conclusion is true. All we have to do is point out why the author's conclusion doesn't have to be true based on their premises. So we're pointing out that the author's overlooking the possibility that there are more than 2 teams.
Can anyone explain the flaw in a different way? The lotto example he gives makes sense to me, whereas teams competing does not.
In the lottery ticket example, it makes sense that even though someone has double the odds of winning in comparison to everyone else, they still have an extremely low chance of winning... I guess because of amount of tickets bought and that its random.
Whereas in the team example, even if a lot of teams are competing, if I have the best quality team, and the team thats the best is most likely to win, why is it flawed to conclude that my team will "almost certainly" win? Is it because "almost certainly" is basically saying guaranteed? Or some other issue with probability?
Please help!
Thank you so much! You're awesome! That makes much more sense :)
I'm having the same issue!
okay so, I did some digging (mostly on powerscore) and here's what I've got.
Consider an example where 4 teams are playing. Team A,B,C,D.
Team A has a 35% chance of winning and this is a higher chance than any other team. Say the other ones each have an equal chance of roughly 22% of winning.
So we can say that Team A is most likely to win.
Now here's where we struggle... We concluded that if team A has a higher chance relative to the other teams to win, then team A is most likely to win.
However, note that team A has a 65% chance of NOT winning! There's a 65% chance of any other team winning (B,C, or D).
Therefore, it is not true that team A is most likely to win.
The truth is that team A is more likely to win compared to any other team playing
BUT team A is not more likely to win than not. Team A is more likely to lose than win.
Like Shadiiii pointed out, just because you are most likely to win does not mean that winning is almost certainly guaranteed.
Most likely to win could literally mean a having a 26% chance of winning while all the other teams have a 25% chance of winning or lower. In short, the word most is relative to the other teams and their chances.
Had the best team in the city until they all entered the portal to get more NIL money
This made me chuckle, for real though LOL