Um...are there quite a number of typos involved in general on this platform? I think I am running into a lot of them but am not always certain given the confusing language used around LSAT matters. The rambling explanations make it challenging to determine which answer is the correct one in this type of lesson.
@owenm After some thought, I eliminated E because it would actually strengthen the argument. It makes sense that at first glance, basing a judgment off of an unrepresentative sample is a bad thing. However, the stim says that this cardiologist is highly skilled. Meaning, that if E were true, the majority of cardiologists would actually be worse than this cardiologist at correctly identifying heart attacks. Therefore, strengthening the conclusion that we should switch over to computers completely. But the argument wants something to weaken, not strengthen.
i have a question that needs some clarifications. in my opinion C just confirms what the argument is saying in that the program correctly diagnosed a higher proportion of heart attacks and that the cardiologists diagnosed higher-proportion of those that didnt have heart attacks which seems to be the the same thing in the other direction. wouldn't that then strengthen the fact that interpreting data should be left to the computer programs?
@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN I believe the reason is because AC C emphasized that the computer identified proportionally more heart attacks than the cardiologist but it fails to consider if the program was correct in also identifying when patients were not having them. What if it identified 75/100 but only 30/100 of them actually had heart attacks whereas the cardiologist identified 23/100 of the correct 30?
I believe the key here is "proportion". If it said accuracy then we'd have to have a different conversation. AC C acknowledges that the stimulus ignores important factors.
@Rena12345 I think it's because it's an automatic transcription of some sort from the video... That would explain why "AI" is written as "a I"... but yeah I had to read that a lot of times to understand what it's saying
I crossed out C bc it focused on another group "ppl with no heart attacks" while the stimulus focused on ppl with heart attacks. I thought we were supposed to focus on the present group. Can someone plz explain why this isn't the case here and when this application matters or not? Thank you!
So, after the explanation am I correct in thinking it's bc they are both part of the same subset and the conclusion is focusing on more general terms that AI should always interpret EKGs?
@emilydermo393 Yes, the idea we are focusing on is Interpreting EKG data. Thus, those who didn't have a heart attack are an important part of that story. AKA if AI was saying everyone is going to have a heart attack, it could be correctly predicting many more who did have heart attacks because it's assigning that idea to all. But that doesn't mean it's more accurate because it could've misdiagnosed 80% of people who did not end up having a heart attack.
I think the most important point about B is that it is not engaging with the reasoning structure at all— I knew going into this question that the correct answer would somehow contradict or weaken the results of the study, which seemingly pointed to computer programs being more accurate. Even though B is enticing, it does nothing to reconcile the results of the study.
#feedback the playback software that allows you to change subtitles, playback speed, etc is sometimes avl and sometimes not. I found that the more progress that I made into the LR section, the less likely I would see the playback interface. On one hand it allowed to focus more on the content on the other hand, I could not change the playback speed.
I agree! I've had to return to this section to try to figure out what flaws were covered, and it's been hard to determine that without watching through all the videos or reading through the whole explanation, which just takes way too long imo, especially if you're just trying to find out what the flaw type was. #feedback
good example of a question where it's really important to focus in on the main conclusion. We're dealing solely with who should be interpreting this data, not who/how one should be making diagnoses, practicing medicine, etc.
Bear in mind that it's a "most" question, so D is not necessarily incorrect, but just not the best answer. If C wasn't an option, D wouldn't be a terrible answer, but C is much stronger
I interpreted it as it would neither help or hinder the argument since it's saying that both computer programs and cardiologists would likely not have accurate diagnoses if they use EKG data. The answer choice does not really ruin the argument since both parties would be effected equally.
The argument is about who (or what) is most equipped (no pun intended) to accurately read the EKG data. D focuses on the EKG data being insufficient which is not the main point of the argument.
#feedback I feel like it would be nice if this section had a written review lesson that listed all the different flaws we encountered. This would help solidify all the variations we were exposed to without having to go back to each lesson and see what new flaw was introduced.
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.
45 comments
This lesson has way too many typos. Please fix it 7Sage!
the boy who cried wolf analogy was TEA. thank you
Um...are there quite a number of typos involved in general on this platform? I think I am running into a lot of them but am not always certain given the confusing language used around LSAT matters. The rambling explanations make it challenging to determine which answer is the correct one in this type of lesson.
@mav73 Thanks for commenting -- not sure what happened with this lesson, there were a lot of typos. Fixes should be up in a few days.
#feedback: this lesson was already done in weaken questions and the video is the exact same as well
I was stumped on this but I got it right in the end!!!
Great explanation but E still looks pretty good.
@owenm After some thought, I eliminated E because it would actually strengthen the argument. It makes sense that at first glance, basing a judgment off of an unrepresentative sample is a bad thing. However, the stim says that this cardiologist is highly skilled. Meaning, that if E were true, the majority of cardiologists would actually be worse than this cardiologist at correctly identifying heart attacks. Therefore, strengthening the conclusion that we should switch over to computers completely. But the argument wants something to weaken, not strengthen.
This was such a good diagram to understand this. Props to 7Sage man
i have a question that needs some clarifications. in my opinion C just confirms what the argument is saying in that the program correctly diagnosed a higher proportion of heart attacks and that the cardiologists diagnosed higher-proportion of those that didnt have heart attacks which seems to be the the same thing in the other direction. wouldn't that then strengthen the fact that interpreting data should be left to the computer programs?
@KUROUSHFAIZRAFATIAN I believe the reason is because AC C emphasized that the computer identified proportionally more heart attacks than the cardiologist but it fails to consider if the program was correct in also identifying when patients were not having them. What if it identified 75/100 but only 30/100 of them actually had heart attacks whereas the cardiologist identified 23/100 of the correct 30?
I believe the key here is "proportion". If it said accuracy then we'd have to have a different conversation. AC C acknowledges that the stimulus ignores important factors.
JY's discussion about true/false positives and negatives took me back to my Biostats course in grad school, lol.
#feedback I feel like this sentence could be clearer: "One is representativeness an issue one isn't it an issue."
@Rena12345 I think it's because it's an automatic transcription of some sort from the video... That would explain why "AI" is written as "a I"... but yeah I had to read that a lot of times to understand what it's saying
I crossed out C bc it focused on another group "ppl with no heart attacks" while the stimulus focused on ppl with heart attacks. I thought we were supposed to focus on the present group. Can someone plz explain why this isn't the case here and when this application matters or not? Thank you!
#help #feedback
So, after the explanation am I correct in thinking it's bc they are both part of the same subset and the conclusion is focusing on more general terms that AI should always interpret EKGs?
@emilydermo393 Yes, the idea we are focusing on is Interpreting EKG data. Thus, those who didn't have a heart attack are an important part of that story. AKA if AI was saying everyone is going to have a heart attack, it could be correctly predicting many more who did have heart attacks because it's assigning that idea to all. But that doesn't mean it's more accurate because it could've misdiagnosed 80% of people who did not end up having a heart attack.
I think the most important point about B is that it is not engaging with the reasoning structure at all— I knew going into this question that the correct answer would somehow contradict or weaken the results of the study, which seemingly pointed to computer programs being more accurate. Even though B is enticing, it does nothing to reconcile the results of the study.
this is a very good point.
Brilliant explanation JY! May God bless you and your family!
your welcome
That opening with the boy who cried wolf is bringing me back to studying truth tables and tautologies
Same, I was also a philosophy major. The opening thought experiment made me so nostalgic for my philosophy classes
@ColinErickson Fr lmfao
#feedback the playback software that allows you to change subtitles, playback speed, etc is sometimes avl and sometimes not. I found that the more progress that I made into the LR section, the less likely I would see the playback interface. On one hand it allowed to focus more on the content on the other hand, I could not change the playback speed.
Weaken questions were my weakness buttt I got this correct :))
#feedback it would be nice if after the end of the lesson, there was a summary including all the types of flaws we learned
Could not agree more, would be extremely helpful! #feedback
I agree! I've had to return to this section to try to figure out what flaws were covered, and it's been hard to determine that without watching through all the videos or reading through the whole explanation, which just takes way too long imo, especially if you're just trying to find out what the flaw type was. #feedback
That was a really great explanation in relation to heart attacks and false wolf positives
JY: "take a moment to reeeally think about this" (immediately) "the answer is NO"
This lesson was super insightful
good example of a question where it's really important to focus in on the main conclusion. We're dealing solely with who should be interpreting this data, not who/how one should be making diagnoses, practicing medicine, etc.
Great lesson! I feel mindboggled by this
#help I still don't quite understand why d) is incorrect?
Bear in mind that it's a "most" question, so D is not necessarily incorrect, but just not the best answer. If C wasn't an option, D wouldn't be a terrible answer, but C is much stronger
I interpreted it as it would neither help or hinder the argument since it's saying that both computer programs and cardiologists would likely not have accurate diagnoses if they use EKG data. The answer choice does not really ruin the argument since both parties would be effected equally.
The argument is about who (or what) is most equipped (no pun intended) to accurately read the EKG data. D focuses on the EKG data being insufficient which is not the main point of the argument.
Exactly. Remember your goal is to sap support away from the conclusion.
I also think that D doesn't change the argument because the premise that the AI made more correct diagnoses still stands.
#feedback I feel like it would be nice if this section had a written review lesson that listed all the different flaws we encountered. This would help solidify all the variations we were exposed to without having to go back to each lesson and see what new flaw was introduced.
I agree #feedback
Good lesson.