PT80.S1.Q16 - Commercial flights

Ashley2018-1

Why is the administrator's argument weak? Is it because she is trying to base her conclusion (pilots make mistakes in 1 in 2 million flight landings) on the flight reports and it's not as precise as actual footage of the flights? (air traffic control tapes?)

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-1-question-16/

hopefulling

It's all about the potential of bias.

The author is trying to relatively compare the two types of data, giving preference for one over the other incorrectly, based on thoroughness alone - and not also considering how strong each piece of data is in reliability. For the 1st - on a partial review of ATC tapes. For the 2nd - on a 'thorough' study of the pilot flight reports.

The two are not equally comparable: the first (ATC tapes) is unbiased data, the 2nd are potentially biased as they are done by the people committing the errors. Also, their perspective from the flight deck might not yield a qualified indicator of whether their plane is going off-course. (maybe looking at something from top-down (assuming (yikes) that the ATC tapes are of the little radar blips on the controllers' screens) yields a better indicator of a plane veering off-course than looking at something from the perspective of the driver??)

I'm trying to think of another scenario: let's use something outlandish like cheating on the flex; Let's say:
According to the latest data, the incidence of cheating on the Flex is virtually zero. Opponents claim that computer-generated reports indicate this number is closer to '1:20' (no idea what to even joke with). A thorough review of self-reported data show this to be inaccurate, which shows virtually no cheating. Therefore, the Flex has virtually no cheating.
- Hope this isn't so outlandish that it's wildly unhelpful in being a distraction!!

• A partial review of computer-generated reports of suspicious activity,
• A thorough review of self-reported reports.
- Well, what if self-reported, albeit 'thorough', doesn't mean that it's as accurate, because it doesn't accurately reflect unbiased reporting?? (yikes, this sentence makes my head spin a bit!!)

hopefulling

Based on my "flaw research:"

• "A proper appeal to an authority must meet the following three fundamentals: 1) authority must exist, 2) authority must have expertise, 3) authority must be objective/disinterested. If an appeal lacks any of these three, it makes an error."

I also wonder if one could argue that comparing a 'complete' something to a 'partial' something also is a type of 'error in the force of the evidence' flaw, but that one seems to do with probable-certain, so it seems like quite the stretch.

Hope this helps.