Could anybody explain why E is correct? I am really bad at math and this kind of question often drives my crazy.
Thanks in advance!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- disguise_sky
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 16
- Joined: June 26th, 2014
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
Re: Q8
Thanks for your question, disguise_sky !
Even though this question is about probability, I recommend that you try NOT to think of it as a math question!
Since this is a Flaw Question, our first stop needs to be at the Argument Core. Some ideas are being confused here, and if we can identify those ideas, we don't need to resort to number crunching!
First, notice that the first sentence isn't really part of our argument core. This tells me what John wants (to win the Mayfield raffle), and why he wants it (he wants the sweet prize!), but it doesn't really affect the argument itself. The core breaks down like this:
Hmmmm. The premise tells me that he can increase his chances of winning some raffle. But then the conclusion tells me that he's going to increase his chances of winning the Mayfield raffle specifically!
How could entering other raffles make any difference in how likely he is to win the Mayfield raffle?
Buying one lotto ticket gives you a chance at winning the jackpot, right? And if you buy 100 tickets, you have more chances to win. But buying the other 99 tickets doesn't make it more likely that the first ticket will win - it just makes it more likely that some ticket you have will win. And that's just because you now have more tickets!!
This is exactly the flaw, or confusing of ideas, that (E) is targeting: confusing the likelihood of winning some raffle ("at least one event in a set of events") with the likelihood of winning the Mayfield raffle specifically ("a designated event in that set").
Let's take a look at each wrong answer choice:
The flaw in this argument boils down to the confusion between an idea mentioned in the premise, and a related idea in the conclusion. While these two ideas touch on probability, it's not really a math question!
Please let me know if this helped clear a few things up!
Even though this question is about probability, I recommend that you try NOT to think of it as a math question!
Since this is a Flaw Question, our first stop needs to be at the Argument Core. Some ideas are being confused here, and if we can identify those ideas, we don't need to resort to number crunching!
First, notice that the first sentence isn't really part of our argument core. This tells me what John wants (to win the Mayfield raffle), and why he wants it (he wants the sweet prize!), but it doesn't really affect the argument itself. The core breaks down like this:
- PREMISE: If John enters LOTS of raffles (instead of just one), he's more likely to win one of them
CONCLUSION: John should enter lots of raffles, to increase his chance of winning the Mayfield raffle.
Hmmmm. The premise tells me that he can increase his chances of winning some raffle. But then the conclusion tells me that he's going to increase his chances of winning the Mayfield raffle specifically!
How could entering other raffles make any difference in how likely he is to win the Mayfield raffle?
Buying one lotto ticket gives you a chance at winning the jackpot, right? And if you buy 100 tickets, you have more chances to win. But buying the other 99 tickets doesn't make it more likely that the first ticket will win - it just makes it more likely that some ticket you have will win. And that's just because you now have more tickets!!
This is exactly the flaw, or confusing of ideas, that (E) is targeting: confusing the likelihood of winning some raffle ("at least one event in a set of events") with the likelihood of winning the Mayfield raffle specifically ("a designated event in that set").
Let's take a look at each wrong answer choice:
(A) While John wants to win the raffle, this was just background information. His desire isn't being used as a premise for any change in likelihood.
(B) John's goal (to win the prize), is also only mentioned in the background information, and isn't confused with anything in the argument core.
(C) Nothing in the argument ever talked about engaging only in behavior likely to be successful!
(D) No 'highly improbable' events were identified - winning raffle might be improbable, but we don't know that. Also, the argument did not conclude that John CAN'T win - it talks about increasing his chances!
The flaw in this argument boils down to the confusion between an idea mentioned in the premise, and a related idea in the conclusion. While these two ideas touch on probability, it's not really a math question!
Please let me know if this helped clear a few things up!
2 posts Page 1 of 1