PT69.S4.Q19: Professor: Economists argue that buying lottery tickets

Shrilaraune

@BlindReviewer I think I'm seeing a pattern here.
Hey 7 sage Fam! This is a question I got wrong on my most recent PT. The last one I discussed with the very helpful @BlindReviewer shares some elements with this one (https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18842/pt60-s1-q13-many-economists-claim-that-financial-rewards). Thing is, I took PT60 months ago, hence the maybe pattern. Help me work through some of the snares?

Similar elements:
1. Some x argue y
2. But they are wrong
3. Bad reason for why they are wrong
4. Referential phrasing

Like the pt60 question, I ended up between 2 answer choices (D and E)
Analysis:
Conclusion: It is not the case that buying lottery tickets are an unwise investment
Reasoning: Because they share a characteristic with buying insurance--and that's generally considered a sound investment
Flaw: Assuming that this similarity is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. It is not. Overestimating the strength of this characteristic and ignoring the differences between the two scenarios/context.

My problem: Both answers are discussing ways in which these two scenarios are different. So the task is to choose which difference is most relevant. But I can't figure out a compelling reason to eliminate D (in fact it's the choice I ended up going with. "Well-Being" in E made me nervous). Do you have any brilliant thoughts to share?

Thanks in advance!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-19/

BlindReviewer

Unfortunately I haven't taken this PT yet so can't help out here haha but hopefully someone else will come through. Best of luck with studying!

Logic Gainz

D gives us an irrelevant comparison! We know that in both scenarios, the average payout is lower than the cost - thereby losing us money - except it's okay to be at a loss with insurance but for some reason it's not okay for the lottery because of a distinction that we must supply.

D never addresses the payout-to-cost comparison, which is the scenario needing to be addressed. It essentially just says that your losses will be steeper when purchasing the lotto ticket (since the odds of winning are lower) than if you purchased the insurance. However, both are still yielding a monetary loss, but we're told that one scenario is okay and the other isn't. Why is that the case? Only E touches on the non-monetary aspect.

Shrilaraune

@"Logic Gainz" said:
D gives us an irrelevant comparison! We know that in both scenarios, the average payout is lower than the cost - thereby losing us money - except it's okay to be at a loss with insurance but for some reason it's not okay for the lottery because of a distinction that we must supply.

D never addresses the payout-to-cost comparison, which is the scenario needing to be addressed. It essentially just says that your losses will be steeper when purchasing the lotto ticket (since the odds of winning are lower) than if you purchased the insurance. However, both are still yielding a monetary loss, but we're told that one scenario is okay and the other isn't. Why is that the case? Only E touches on the non-monetary aspect.

Boom. Thank you. This makes a lot of sense!