In the syllabus, is it possible to name the lessons based on what specific flaw is being discussed in that lessons as opposed to naming it after the content matter of the stimulus itself. For example, this lesson could be named "Part to Whole" versus "Volleyball" #feedback
#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.
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
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
@JacquelineMoon 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.
From a political science perspective, say there are 3 parties competing for 1 seat: Party A, Party B, Party C.
Recent polling suggests voters prefer Party A by a narrow margin (35%) compared to Parties B (30%) and C (28%). Suppose the remainder (7%) is undecided.
Does this mean Party A is more likely than not to win the election? No! It would be more accurately labeled a highly competitive race. For instance, what if almost all of the undecided voters turned out for Party B on election day? That could be enough to put it ahead of Party A.
Hope this helps anyone for whom the lottery example didn't really click.
#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?
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.
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
Have you ever did March Madness or Pick Em's and you did all the research, and your top team had a 85% chance of winning? But then they didn't win and you lose all your money. Yeah. Just because you're most likely to win doesn't mean it's going to occur for certain (life advice not just LSAT advice)
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.
@Lev 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.
87 comments
In the syllabus, is it possible to name the lessons based on what specific flaw is being discussed in that lessons as opposed to naming it after the content matter of the stimulus itself. For example, this lesson could be named "Part to Whole" versus "Volleyball" #feedback
lmaooo yes they need this
Cut the choices down to B and C and saw that I was so wrong lmao. I’m just gonna keep pushing lol.
#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!
or at least put the lsat question number so I can find it first and do it
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.
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
this is like the la lakers
haa clippers too
nets a couple years ago
Lightbulb moment towards the end: We are not looking for a description of the argument, but where the argument went wrong.
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
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
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.
and we need to be able to decipher that within 1:05-1:15 :\
@edward.ratkoczy preferably yes or shorter
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
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
@JacquelineMoon 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.
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
what was this question dawg
These last few questions have been destroying me LOL
This and the prior lesson were eye-opening.
From a political science perspective, say there are 3 parties competing for 1 seat: Party A, Party B, Party C.
Recent polling suggests voters prefer Party A by a narrow margin (35%) compared to Parties B (30%) and C (28%). Suppose the remainder (7%) is undecided.
Does this mean Party A is more likely than not to win the election? No! It would be more accurately labeled a highly competitive race. For instance, what if almost all of the undecided voters turned out for Party B on election day? That could be enough to put it ahead of Party A.
Hope this helps anyone for whom the lottery example didn't really click.
break up confusing answer choices by separating conclusion descriptors from premise descriptors
#feedback This lesson was super clear and well-explained. Thanks, JY!
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
#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?
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.
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
#feedback This lesson and the previous one are great.
Hi there,
We're glad to hear this and thanks for letting us know! Feel free to reach out at any time if you have any additional feedback or questions.
Ok I understand why it is right but I was not prepared for "most likely" not being over 50 percent even though its MOST likely.
This explanation was incredible.
Have you ever did March Madness or Pick Em's and you did all the research, and your top team had a 85% chance of winning? But then they didn't win and you lose all your money. Yeah. Just because you're most likely to win doesn't mean it's going to occur for certain (life advice not just LSAT advice)
._.
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.
@Lev thank you so much for your response!
@Lev 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