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
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
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.
#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?
#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!
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%).
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?
break up confusing answer choices by separating conclusion descriptors from premise descriptors
7
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!
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.
66 comments
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... đź’”
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
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).
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 :\
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
what was this question dawg
Are the test writers PSG fans lol
AHHHHH I have to review this one im starring it
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
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 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.
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.
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! 🥹
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?
#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!
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%).
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!
Had the best team in the city until they all entered the portal to get more NIL money
break up confusing answer choices by separating conclusion descriptors from premise descriptors