Q8 - Travel writer: A vacationer should

[rbolden]

Hello,

I was able to narrow down the choices to B and C. But then ended up picking C. Can you please explain why C is wrong and B is right?

Thanks!

[da.chou]

I've been reviewing LR 41 so I thought I'd chime in again. This forum has helped me before and hopefully I can contribute. I'm also doing this to clear up my thought process on LR as I am taking in Oct. for the third time. I am also pretty sure my explanations are not wrong but if they are, please correct me and I'll stop doing this...

First, you have to realize the Travel Writer's argument is flawed as stated in the question stem. He commits the "gambler's error"...an accident in the past 5 years does not decrease your chances of getting into an accident. Likewise, no accident in the past 5 years does not increase your chance of getting into an accident.

(B) is correct because it follow this flawed reasoning. In any year, 1 in 10 baboons become top dog. A baboon has been in the same troop for 10 years without being top dog now has a better chance? Nope, his chance is still 1 in 10...

(C) is not the right answer because the logic isn't flawed. A resident's chance is 1 in 10,000. Marty's chance is 1 in 10,000.

[noah]

Great explanation and anti-gambling message

[dylancox_12]

Just a nit-picking point ...
I agree that C is incorrect because it does not use the same "gambler's error" as both B and the original stimulus do, however there is a possibility that the logic in C could be flawed as well (so we can't argue C is not the right answer because the logic is flawed).

C says the AVERAGE resident's chance is 1 in 10,000 and then concludes that Marty as a 5-year old must have a 1 in 10,000 chance as well. However, this would only hold if in the city the average resident was 5 years old. There is a substantial possibility that Marty, as a 5-year old, is NOT the average resident in the city. In this case, we wouldn't be able to conclude that his chances are 1 in 10,000. Am I correct?

[noahteitelbaum]

There is a substantial possibility that Marty, as a 5-year old, is NOT the average resident in the city. In this case, we wouldn't be able to conclude that his chances are 1 in 10,000. Am I correct?

Great point!

To elaborate, if we're told the average life expectancy for men is 78 years, that doesn't mean that my life expectancy is 78 (since my wife has me drink cod liver oil, which should prolong my life).

And, don't apologize for nit-picking - the LSAT is designed for that!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument’s main conclusion is that a vacationer should choose an airline that has had an accident in the past 5 years. This is based on an intermediate conclusion that if an airline has had no accident during the past 5 years, the chances the airline will have an accident are increased. The intermediate conclusion is supported by the claim that the average airline has 1 accident every 5 years.

There are two issues with the reasoning between the argument’s premise and intermediate conclusion. First, what’s true of the average airline is not necessarily true for any specific airline. Second, the absence of phenomenon for a period of time does not increase the chance that the phenomenon will occur in the future.

Correct Answer
Answer choice (B) commits both flaws to those committed in the stimulus by suggesting what is true for the average baboon is true for one specific baboon and also that the failure of the baboon to become troop leader in the past influences the baboon’s chance of becoming troop leader in the future.

Incorrect Answers
(A) commits the flaw regarding past performance influencing the chance of present performance, but lacks the issue relating the average of a group of members with any one member.
(C) commits the flaw relating the average member to an individual member, but lacks the issue regarding past performance influencing the chance of present performance.
(D) is a valid argument relating what is true of the average adolescent to what is true of the average adult. Connecting the premises in this argument does allow the conclusion to be drawn.
(E) commits a different interpretation of the flaw relating past behavior with future behavior, but fails to commit a flaw relating the average of a group of members with any one member.

[nflamel69]

How can we be sure that D is a valid argument? the argument only said part time makes less than full time? can we assume that its referring to their marginal wage? I thought D was flawed because it shifts the comparison from an overall wage to comparison of marginal wage