Q16 - From the observation

[wj097]

How would you name this fallacy? Is it even a fallacy?? (the conclusion is worded weak enough to qualify as a reasonable argument)

P: each member is possible to possess A
C: all member possess A is possible

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

At Manhattan LSAT we do not try to classify every Identify the Flaw question as belonging to a specific type of flaw. Instead, we work to describe the gap in the reasoning since each ID the Flaw question rests on an unwarranted assumption.

That said, if I wanted to describe in abstract language the gap in the argument, it would go something like this.

The argument assumes that because each of many events is possible, the possibility of all of those events occurring at once is also possible.

The argument is flawed because it's clearly not possible that more than one tennis player would win the same event. Just because each of them has a chance to win, that doesn't mean there's a chance that somehow we could depart reality and see them all win the top spot!

[wj097]

The argument is flawed because it's clearly not possible that more than one tennis player would win the same event. Just because each of them has a chance to win, that doesn't mean there's a chance that somehow we could depart reality and see them all win the top spot!

Oh..."the" tournament...all along I was scratching my head thinking a tournament...

Thx

[alex.cheng.2012]

I'm having some trouble understanding why answer (D) is incorrect and why answer (C) is correct.

Is answer (D) incorrect because it's actually only about one member (there's a single coin being flipped five times) and it doesn't talk about a group?

I was thrown off my C at first because many = some, and some = at least 1, so my first thought was "it is totally possible for all the nominees to be appointed."

However, the reason why answer (C) is correct is because it follows the principle as outlined in the question. Even though it is possible for all the nominees to be appointed, that doesn't matter, because the principle doesn't talk about/care about whether it is possible or not, but rather it holds issue with concluding immediately that it's possible.

Could someone help me out and give me some feedback?

[jackielacchin]

I could be wrong about this, but I was able to eliminate D) because it is about probabilities of coin tosses. Each coin toss has a 50/50 chance to land on heads or tails. Thus the chance of all 5 of the tosses is also half. There is no leeway in that probability. It is definite. The stimulus is about a more relative matter with shades of grey. Yes this is a winner and there is a loser, but their odds are not necessarily 50/50 because we don't know if all else is equal. Moreover, the original states that since each tennis player has a possibility of winning the match, all have a possibility of winning it -- but this is not necessarily true because we don't know how the chance of each player winning the match changes when pitted against another competitor. For example, I have a 50/50 chance of winning a match because there is two players and only one winner. BUT, what if I am up against Serena Williams? I certainly DO NOT have a 50/50 chance of winning this match, so therefore the possibility that ALL can win the tournament is not plausible. Moreover, tournaments have multiple matches and qualifying rounds, so each round is dependent on the previous round whereas a coin toss is NOT dependant on past flips. If I get 4 heads in a row I still have a 50/50 chance of getting a heads again in the next flip. Just because in the past I have all heads doesn't mean i am "due" for a tails.This is actually referred to as the gambler's fallacy -- or something of that sort, I cannot remember the exact term.

[Mab6q]

I think what makes D so tempting is C not being a sure fit answer. For the most part it looks good, but the issue is that many could be three, so you could argue that all three could be appointed. That, however, is a small assumption to make and even with that limitation, it's a much better match than D. D allows the percentages to shift, from 50 percent each time to an overall probability of 50 percent. Not quite the same thing.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think what makes D so tempting is C not being a sure fit answer. For the most part it looks good, but the issue is that many could be three, so you could argue that all three could be appointed.

I totally agree with this. That is why it was really tough for me to pick (C); the word "many" freaked me out and it made me doubt if I was missing something in another answer choice.

However, (D) is really a different flaw. First of all, (D) IS flawed. From the premise that a coin has a 50% chance of being heads, that does not mean that a coin has a 50% chance of being heads five times in a row. In actuality, there is about a 3% chance of this happening because you would have to multiply the 50% chance of take 1 by the 50% chance of take 2 by the 50% of take 3, etc. Regardless, I am getting off topic.

(D) would have been the correct answer if it would have said, "There is the same probability that a coin will land heads as the coin will land tails. Thus, one cannot discount the idea that the coin will land heads and tails."

(A) is not really flawed.

(B) is not really flawed either (as it is not talking about actual appointment but rather analysis of the candidates).

(E) is bizarre but, other than the assumption that a planetary exploration is the only way to know if life exists on those planets, it is not really flawed either.