On Track for the June 2010 LSAT -- Refractory Period Forum

[pbmoore]

Country 1 is clearly the wrong choice because the chance of the eclipse being blocked by clouds is not only greater there than in Country 2, but is also the most likely possibility. Furthermore, while the Ortegas have the option of traveling to another area in Country 1 via rental car to see the eclipse, there is no support that the weather would be any better anywhere else. Seeing that the Ortegas are planning their trip around this eclipse, and because seeing it appears in their list of criteria, being able to see the solar eclipse should be the most important factor in choosing between the two countries. And in this aspect, Country 2 clearly has the edge.

[Tautology]

Next total solar eclipse in the U.S. not being until 2017 sucks btw. I want to see one!

[WWAD]

Country 1 is clearly the wrong choice because the chance of the eclipse being blocked by clouds is not only greater there than in Country 2, but is also the most likely possibility. Furthermore, while the Ortegas have the option of traveling to another area in Country 1 via rental car to see the eclipse, there is no support that the weather would be any better anywhere else. Seeing that the Ortegas are planning their trip around this eclipse, and because seeing it appears in their list of criteria, being able to see the solar eclipse should be the most important factor in choosing between the two countries. And in this aspect, Country 2 clearly has the edge.

Not only that but the tour guide is going to work his ass off to get you a shot of seeing the eclipse.

[zworykin]

Country 1 is clearly the wrong choice because the chance of the eclipse being blocked by clouds is not only greater there than in Country 2, but is also the most likely possibility. Furthermore, while the Ortegas have the option of traveling to another area in Country 1 via rental car to see the eclipse, there is no support that the weather would be any better anywhere else. Seeing that the Ortegas are planning their trip around this eclipse, and because seeing it appears in their list of criteria, being able to see the solar eclipse should be the most important factor in choosing between the two countries. And in this aspect, Country 2 clearly has the edge.

Not only that but the tour guide is going to work his ass off to get you a shot of seeing the eclipse.

Well now, that could very well be an unfounded assumption. He may be too busy working his ass off to get you not shot in the ass by the guerillas trying to take over the country. But that's ok, I agree with your conclusion if not your premises

[Knock]

Country 1 is clearly the wrong choice because the chance of the eclipse being blocked by clouds is not only greater there than in Country 2, but is also the most likely possibility. Furthermore, while the Ortegas have the option of traveling to another area in Country 1 via rental car to see the eclipse, there is no support that the weather would be any better anywhere else. Seeing that the Ortegas are planning their trip around this eclipse, and because seeing it appears in their list of criteria, being able to see the solar eclipse should be the most important factor in choosing between the two countries. And in this aspect, Country 2 clearly has the edge.

Not only that but the tour guide is going to work his ass off to get you a shot of seeing the eclipse.

Well now, that could very well be an unfounded assumption. He may be too busy working his ass off to get you not shot in the ass by the guerillas trying to take over the country. But that's ok, I agree with your conclusion if not your premises

+1/2. You can't see an eclipse if you're dead. Country 1 is the only choice!

[4llin]

Country 1 easssssy, examine the facts...The only advantage country 2 had was that there was a larger chance of seeing the eclipse (Still not a garuntee!!)...Country 1 had...travel advantage (both in price and ease to get there along with flexibility of having a car over having to go by the "tour companys" itinerary..."Unrivaled cultural center" (which thankfully was not under the possibility of having the embassies within said cities taken over due to political unrest...and some members of the family had been there before, which can be interpreted to mean that they had such a pleasant time that they would debate returning there for a second time over visiting an unknown location...yeah city 1 allll day babayyyyy

First of all I hope you didn't spell 'garuntee' that way.

Second of all, I am now going to dominate your argument because I have nothing better to do.

There were two selection criteria:

(1) Probability of seeing eclipse
(2) Enjoyable trip

(1) is 3:1 in favor of Country 2 (75% chance vs. 25% chance) - clear dominance
(2) is at best (for your argument) slightly in favor of Country 1, and at worst (again, for your argument) a draw.

Facts for (2):

Cost is not a relevant factor and should be excluded from consideration.
No one had visited Country 2, whereas 'some' had visited 1; so 2 has the new experience card.
Country 1 has a capital which is 'rich and unmatched' in its' quality
Political Instability was downplayed as being away from the region visited.

Thus, given that the capital of 1 is 'rich and unmatched' we can assume that the experience will be the best there. This is assuming, however, that the new experience factor does not allow the experience at Country 2 to exceed 1 in net utility. Nonetheless, it is clear to see that the two countries are approximately equally favorable with regard to criteria 2.

Since we have no information about the relative weighting of the two criteria, it is safe to say that they are weighted equally. Given that criteria 1 is dominant for country 1, and criteria 2 is basically a wash - the decision is simple.

[Knock]

Country 1 easssssy, examine the facts...The only advantage country 2 had was that there was a larger chance of seeing the eclipse (Still not a garuntee!!)...Country 1 had...travel advantage (both in price and ease to get there along with flexibility of having a car over having to go by the "tour companys" itinerary..."Unrivaled cultural center" (which thankfully was not under the possibility of having the embassies within said cities taken over due to political unrest...and some members of the family had been there before, which can be interpreted to mean that they had such a pleasant time that they would debate returning there for a second time over visiting an unknown location...yeah city 1 allll day babayyyyy

First of all I hope you didn't spell 'garuntee' that way.

Second of all, I am now going to dominate your argument because I have nothing better to do.

There were two selection criteria:

(1) Probability of seeing eclipse
(2) Enjoyable trip

(1) is 3:1 in favor of Country 2 (75% chance vs. 25% chance) - clear dominance
(2) is at best (for your argument) slightly in favor of Country 1, and at worst (again, for your argument) a draw.

Facts for (2):

Cost is not a relevant factor and should be excluded from consideration.
No one had visited Country 2, whereas 'some' had visited 1; so 2 has the new experience card.
Country 1 has a capital which is 'rich and unmatched' in its' quality
Political Instability was downplayed as being away from the region visited.

Thus, given that the capital of 1 is 'rich and unmatched' we can assume that the experience will be the best there. This is assuming, however, that the new experience factor does not allow the experience at Country 2 to exceed 1 in net utility. Nonetheless, it is clear to see that the two countries are approximately equally favorable with regard to criteria 2.

Since we have no information about the relative weighting of the two criteria, it is safe to say that they are weighted equally. Given that criteria 1 is dominant for country 1, and criteria 2 is basically a wash - the decision is simple.

Pffft. Having to be a part of a tour group doesn't compare to having your own car, and having the experience to really go to the hole in the wall places that make a trip amazing.

[Godlike]

Country 1 easssssy, examine the facts...The only advantage country 2 had was that there was a larger chance of seeing the eclipse (Still not a garuntee!!)...Country 1 had...travel advantage (both in price and ease to get there along with flexibility of having a car over having to go by the "tour companys" itinerary..."Unrivaled cultural center" (which thankfully was not under the possibility of having the embassies within said cities taken over due to political unrest...and some members of the family had been there before, which can be interpreted to mean that they had such a pleasant time that they would debate returning there for a second time over visiting an unknown location...yeah city 1 allll day babayyyyy

First of all I hope you didn't spell 'garuntee' that way.

Second of all, I am now going to dominate your argument because I have nothing better to do.

There were two selection criteria:

(1) Probability of seeing eclipse
(2) Enjoyable trip

(1) is 3:1 in favor of Country 2 (75% chance vs. 25% chance) - clear dominance
(2) is at best (for your argument) slightly in favor of Country 1, and at worst (again, for your argument) a draw.

Facts for (2):

Cost is not a relevant factor and should be excluded from consideration.
No one had visited Country 2, whereas 'some' had visited 1; so 2 has the new experience card.
Country 1 has a capital which is 'rich and unmatched' in its' quality
Political Instability was downplayed as being away from the region visited.

Thus, given that the capital of 1 is 'rich and unmatched' we can assume that the experience will be the best there. This is assuming, however, that the new experience factor does not allow the experience at Country 2 to exceed 1 in net utility. Nonetheless, it is clear to see that the two countries are approximately equally favorable with regard to criteria 2.

Since we have no information about the relative weighting of the two criteria, it is safe to say that they are weighted equally. Given that criteria 1 is dominant for country 1, and criteria 2 is basically a wash - the decision is simple.

(1) the three to one ratio can easily be argued against on the basis that the flexibility the rental allows you in site location greatly lessens the chance you will be unable to find a non obscured chunk of sky....although second country is probably stronger hear, their can be debate as too the "clear dominance"

(2) If anything 2 is clearly dominant in favor of the first country...your assumptions about the data they give you are just wrong

Ok...Facts for (2):
Cost is a VERY relevant factor. It is not "enjoyable trip" the wording was that they would still have a "worthwhile" trip. This implies that the cost and convenience are definitely relevant.
The fact that country 1 has been visited already is both a plus and minus, it could also mean that they have the added benefits of having some knowledge of the area, the best tours, restaurants, etc
Political stability was NOT downplayed, it wasn't mentioned as specifically int he cities they would be in, but considering that it mentions that they did not rent a car instead of a tour BECAUSE of the instability, it was OBVIOUSLY relevant.

In short you claimed to "dominate" his arguement then proceeded to exhibit that you did not hardly read, or at least remember the relevant data. Although a strong arguement can be made for one or two, much of your reasoning is simply flawed or based on inferences you made that the problem never actually stated or implied

[Knock]

Country 1 easssssy, examine the facts...The only advantage country 2 had was that there was a larger chance of seeing the eclipse (Still not a garuntee!!)...Country 1 had...travel advantage (both in price and ease to get there along with flexibility of having a car over having to go by the "tour companys" itinerary..."Unrivaled cultural center" (which thankfully was not under the possibility of having the embassies within said cities taken over due to political unrest...and some members of the family had been there before, which can be interpreted to mean that they had such a pleasant time that they would debate returning there for a second time over visiting an unknown location...yeah city 1 allll day babayyyyy

First of all I hope you didn't spell 'garuntee' that way.

Second of all, I am now going to dominate your argument because I have nothing better to do.

There were two selection criteria:

(1) Probability of seeing eclipse
(2) Enjoyable trip

(1) is 3:1 in favor of Country 2 (75% chance vs. 25% chance) - clear dominance
(2) is at best (for your argument) slightly in favor of Country 1, and at worst (again, for your argument) a draw.

Facts for (2):

Cost is not a relevant factor and should be excluded from consideration.
No one had visited Country 2, whereas 'some' had visited 1; so 2 has the new experience card.
Country 1 has a capital which is 'rich and unmatched' in its' quality
Political Instability was downplayed as being away from the region visited.

Thus, given that the capital of 1 is 'rich and unmatched' we can assume that the experience will be the best there. This is assuming, however, that the new experience factor does not allow the experience at Country 2 to exceed 1 in net utility. Nonetheless, it is clear to see that the two countries are approximately equally favorable with regard to criteria 2.

Since we have no information about the relative weighting of the two criteria, it is safe to say that they are weighted equally. Given that criteria 1 is dominant for country 1, and criteria 2 is basically a wash - the decision is simple.

(1) the three to one ratio can easily be argued against on the basis that the flexibility the rental allows you in site location greatly lessens the chance you will be unable to find a non obscured chunk of sky....although second country is probably stronger hear, their can be debate as too the "clear dominance"

(2) If anything 2 is clearly dominant in favor of the first country...your assumptions about the data they give you are just wrong

Ok...Facts for (2):
Cost is a VERY relevant factor. It is not "enjoyable trip" the wording was that they would still have a "worthwhile" trip. This implies that the cost and convenience are definitely relevant.
The fact that country 1 has been visited already is both a plus and minus, it could also mean that they have the added benefits of having some knowledge of the area, the best tours, restaurants, etc
Political stability was NOT downplayed, it wasn't mentioned as specifically int he cities they would be in, but considering that it mentions that they did not rent a car instead of a tour BECAUSE of the instability, it was OBVIOUSLY relevant.

In short you claimed to "dominate" his arguement then proceeded to exhibit that you did not hardly read, or at least remember the relevant data. Although a strong arguement can be made for one or two, much of your reasoning is simply flawed or based on inferences you made that the problem never actually stated or implied

+1 million. Going to sleep now, will be dreaming about Country 1 .

[shoop]

I basically wrote that, on first glance, one country seems to be better for the eclipse, and one seems to be better for the "worthwhile-ness" objective, so we need to look at something else to really decide, and that something is flexibility. Country 1 you can roll around in your rental, follow whims inspired by the previous day's exploring, the family members who have been there have already done that "waste a half-day just getting oriented" bit so you can jump straight into it, and if there are clouds in 1 place, you can hustle off somewhere else. I contended that the tour in country 2 might be rigidly scheduled and you might either end up being in one of the 25% of places with clouds at eclipse time or not be able to get to prime eclipse-viewin' territory if guerrillas have the roads blocked or the airport shut down, and barring all that, you might still not be interested in the shit the tour takes you to see (or there might be better shit and you'd never know about it).