Law School Discussion

POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #800 on: December 08, 2005, 06:07:40 PM »
leto, i can't remember which i chose--i think it was answer b. but i think it was the one you are talking about, and i agree with your reasoning...if people have more than one symptom, it increases the chance that they will have one of 25 percent not cured.

So there are 60 total symptoms. So 75 percent of 60 is 45, right? Okay,  I have a 3 outta 4 chance for each symptom that it will clear up...but the fact that i have more than one symptom makes it less likely. If the answer you chose (and i think i did) says most people have more than one symptom...then i might have 60 symptoms! So not all of them will clear up. Even if I have 45, 30, 10 symptoms, for each additional one i have, i increase my chance of having one in the dreaded 25 percent.

And i know we are just not suppsoed to bring in outside stuff, but if I have a cold, I have a lot of the symptoms associated with it...it's not likle i just have one of the sumptoms.

Or let's say one of the symptoms is extremely prevalent...like a runny nose with a cold. Even if there are 59 other symptoms assocaited with a cold, if everonme has that one symptom, it is not going to clear up.

Makes sense to me!

The flaw is that the reasoning assumes all symptoms have an equal chance of being cleared up.

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #801 on: December 08, 2005, 06:12:01 PM »
no.. the answer choice that was supposed to apply to the flaw was worded something like this "the disease that is common to most people has an equal chance of being any of the 60 problems".

I'm going to repeat some stuff said about the answer choice "forgets taht people may have more than one problem". a lot of us feel that this answer choice is wrong because the flaw int he reasonign was this: just because most (75%) of the problems cleared up in 50 weeks ----> most people will be cured in 50 weeks."

the fact that people have more than one doesn't really attack this reasoning. The one that does, in my opinion, is the one i stated above. if, for instance, one of the problems in the 25% that takes longer than 50 weeks is common to most people, than the reasoning in the stimulus is clearly suspect, and this is the answer choice that most directly attacks that flaw.

There was argument from other people who felt that there was an answer choice stating that "there are way more than 60 problems". this side was argued against by people like me and some others who felt there was something in the stimulus.. possibly saying that the 60 problems selected were the most common, or etc. to make this answer a non issue, but because we all had trouble remembering the exact wording, decided that probably we won't know until the answers come out officially.

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #802 on: December 08, 2005, 06:14:07 PM »
Oh--I see. Yes.

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #803 on: December 08, 2005, 06:16:42 PM »
Oh--I see. Yes.

sorry, i added some more to clarify a bit. this was something we haggled over for a while but i feel people could benefit from my rehashing what the arguments were over. i always want to hear new perspectives on this problem as it was the one that gave me the most trouble, though i walked out after bubbling my answer choice feeling pretty confident, i still felt it was a hard question.

leto

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #804 on: December 08, 2005, 07:36:54 PM »
So the answer really was something like: "the disease that is common to most people has an equal chance of being any of the 60 problems". I don't really know whether the author is mistakenly assuming this or mistakenly not assuming this because I don't remember the wording. Would this save the argument, or screw it up anyway? Say the symptom common to most people does not have an equal chance to be one of the 60 symptoms. What does that mean? An example would be that this symptom could have 51% chance to be one of those 15 uncurable ones, and 49% chance to be one for those 45 curable ones. Therefore, higher probability of being the uncurable one. But this would mean only a higher probability, but not certainty that most people would not be cured. This doesn't really destroy the argument. Assume now that the author doesn't consider this possibility, but he should. In this case, the symptom present in most people would have 75% chance to be one of those curable, and 25% chance to be uncurable. In this case, it is still possible that the conclusion of the argument is true or not true. The problem I have with this is that you have to assume that there is a symptom that most people have. What if there is not symptom present in over 50% of people. This is where this other answer comes. Say most people have more than one symptom. You don't assume that any symptom has to be present in over 50% of people. You don't care which combinations of symptoms these people have, curable or uncurable. All you know is that this therapy will kill 75% of symptoms, and you are left with some. Extreme case: all people have all 60 symptoms... 



Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #805 on: December 08, 2005, 07:42:31 PM »
Yeah, leto, i think you are onto something...

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #806 on: December 08, 2005, 07:51:11 PM »
the question was "what is this argument most vulnerable to" type, i believe.  and this is a strong case for the answer choice i presented.

if the flaw is indeed as i stated it "most problems are cured in 50 weeks --> therefore most people will only need 50 weeks of therapy"

the answer choice that attacks the flaw is not "people may have more than one disease". while the stimulus was not clear on this, there was nothign that stated that each person only had one of 60 diseases. That aside, this alone does not attack the flaw. because this is still working off the assumption of "most" problems realting to "most" people.

Whereas the asnwer choice i said, does, because this means that most problems cannot be directly connected to "most" people. this isnt' a "what weakens most" question. if it were then yes the wording would have to be different for BOTH anwer choices to really qualify as a strong answer.

imago

  • ****
  • 137
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #807 on: December 12, 2005, 08:32:32 AM »
bump

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #808 on: December 12, 2005, 10:16:07 PM »
Not sure if this has surfaced yet in the list, but in case anyone is still looking for LR questions.

I believe at least two questions were "role of statement" questions.

Can't remember more details than that.

Anyone?

RW

Re: POST-MORTEM December '05 - Logical Reasoning
« Reply #809 on: December 18, 2005, 09:46:56 AM »
bump