PT 57 sec 4 #10

joekim1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 am

PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby joekim1 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:05 pm

it's the problem about bicycle safety and accidents. when running through it, i instantly noticed that by stating the bit about safety gear and then concluding its contribution to accidents (25% by breaking traffic regulations and 25% by safety gear) the columnist was making a correlation-causation error. so i chose B and moved on, then upon review noticed C, which is also correct, and now i'm here wondering why the heck B is wrong.

any help?

User avatar
TheTopBloke
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby TheTopBloke » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:19 pm

Consider this... what's the correlation?

User avatar
chewdak
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby chewdak » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:20 pm

I don't see any correlation errors here.
Can you identify the premises and the conclusion?

joekim1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 am

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby joekim1 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:24 pm

okay, this is how i see this.

P1: failure to obey regulations is factor in 25%+ of accidents
P2: equipment is also a factor in 25%+ accidents <- took this as correlation
C: so bicyclists contribute to 50%+ of accidents

the fact that equipment was a factor, that it happened to occur, in the accident statistics is making me see this as correlation between inadequate equipment and 25% of accidents.

does this make sense??

User avatar
chewdak
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby chewdak » Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:18 pm

joekim1 wrote:okay, this is how i see this.

P1: failure to obey regulations is factor in 25%+ of accidents
P2: equipment is also a factor in 25%+ accidents <- took this as correlation
C: so bicyclists contribute to 50%+ of accidents

the fact that equipment was a factor, that it happened to occur, in the accident statistics is making me see this as correlation between inadequate equipment and 25% of accidents.

does this make sense??

A little.
Maybe you got confused by the word "causal" in the stimulus.
You have a correlation error when 2 events are presented as if one caused the other when in fact they are merely coincidental.
That's not what happens here. The 2 factors correlate, i.e. are coincidental, but there is no claim that one causes the other.
The error is when they add up the percentage without considering that there may be overlap.
Here is an analogy.
P1.25%+ of the audience are men with dark hair.
P2.25%+ of the audience are men with brown eyes.
C: 50%+ of the audience are men
If no men with dark hair have brown eyes, the conclusion is correct. But there is likely overlap, which could invalidate the conclusion.
Still confused?

joekim1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 am

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby joekim1 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:00 pm

i mean, i understand the CR. it's not that i crossed it out and chose B, i just chose B and skipped the rest of the ACs without looking at the CR because i felt so sure that B was right. that's what freaked me out upon review.

guess i got confused with the language a bit. C makes perfect sense, and had it come before B, i would have at least seen it and contemplated the two, but meh. i think lsac is making be read into things and come up with things that aren't there. lol. what freaks me out is the fact that i made this error, that's all.

thanks for the help.

User avatar
chewdak
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:54 pm

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby chewdak » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:30 pm

You bet.
This is a good question to learn, I am sure it will reappear.
There was another one about political supporters and donors.
It's all about whether different groups could or could not have members in common.
LSAC definitely tries to trip you.
Here, there is a correlation between factors, and they mention "causal relationship" in the stimulus, then
throw causal-correlation error at you as one of the answer choices.

joekim1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 am

Re: PT 57 sec 4 #10

Postby joekim1 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:43 pm

exactly. these are the types of questions you want to reduce, the ones where you get surprised you got something wrong. otherwise you're going to get boned during the test, because there's nothing you can do to change your answer! completely screws you over. sigh.. here's to hopin saturday doesn't have those for me :P




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, laqueredup, ngogirl12, PresidentIJohnson, towel13661, Vino.Veritas and 6 guests