Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section Forum

[Dany]

[apropos]

Your argument has become invalid because you don't know what ambiguous means. I could misinterpret a word in 20 different ways. That doesn't make any of those misinterpretations valid. Just because you took a word to mean something else, doesn't make that word ambiguous. Your incorrect definition has no validity in the context of the test unless you reword the sentence. Anecdotal evidence saying multple people found other interpretations doesn't mean those interpretations are right. There is a reason you are going to get the questions wrong and I won't. I bet you believe in big foot too because a bunch of people said he was real.

Always striking how the most arrogantly phrased statements tend so much to also be the silliest. The point is not saying that a word is ambiguous if you, or one such person, interprets it in 20 different ways. Nor is this at all similar to believing in bigfoot, or thinking that claims that a banana is blue might make the banana blue. A good number of people misinterpreting a statement is evidence that that statement can be interpreted more than one way. And that is the definition of ambiguity, assuming that the interpretation is not wrong. I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong. At most you could argue that the interpretation is strange enough that the ambiguity is within reasonable limits. Then this thread would have much fewer way-to-strong statements and more worthwhile arguments.

Here's an attempt that will convince no one and is kind of ludicrous, but I'm bored.

If a wide variety of people, from a wide variety of backgrounds, think that dolphins are fish, that does not make dolphins fish. Nor does it introduce ambiguity into whether dolphins are fish or not. Dolphins are not fish. You could interpret them as fish - they live under water, they have fins, they swim around and eat smaller fish. On its face, it's not an unreasonable thing to believe. It's just wrong.

That's how I see this question. I totally get how a lot of people could think that the word in question was referring to something else, much like I get how someone seeing a dolphin go by could think "oh, fish!" But I don't think that introduces any ambiguity into the meaning of the word in this context any more than there is ambiguity about whether a dolphin is a fish.

To get to the test, in context there was a clear meaning of the word. Some not insignificant number of people made a mistake and thought that the word meant something else. It was not an unreasonable mistake to make. If you stretch hard enough, you can almost make it fit. But it doesn't, no matter how many people think it might. The people who thought the term meant something else made a mistake, just as someone seeing a dolphin swim by and saying "oh, look at the fish" made a mistake.

How's that for a bulletproof example.

[/quote]

Made of low-fat creamy butter. I really don't want to get involved in these back-and-forths, though. And I'm not bored. Suffice it to say that mammalian biology is more black and white and less subject to human usage or change compared to contextuality in linguistics or philosophy of language.

[citrustang]

That's one odd-looking fish.

Sorry, CryingMonkey, I don't find your example very analogous.

[FuManChusco]

Always striking how the most arrogantly phrased statements tend so much to also be the silliest. The point is not saying that a word is ambiguous if you, or one such person, interprets it in 20 different ways. Nor is this at all similar to believing in bigfoot, or thinking that claims that a banana is blue might make the banana blue. A good number of people misinterpreting a statement is evidence that that statement can be interpreted more than one way. And that is the definition of ambiguity, assuming that the interpretation is not wrong. I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong. At most you could argue that the interpretation is strange enough that the ambiguity is within reasonable limits. Then this thread would have much fewer way-to-strong statements and more worthwhile arguments.

Firstly, and I got this from LSAT, you are presuming what you set out to prove. That is not the definition of ambiguity. The sentence actually has to have multiple valid interpretations. You're making the assumption that the interpretation is not wrong. In the context of the test, IT IS WRONG. There is absolutely no way that in the current structure of the exam, the "alternative" definition of the term, meaning a location, could possibly be used correctly. It is not within reasonable limits. Let me give you an example.

"I ate the cookies on the couch." Well I could be eating the cookies that I happened to find sitting on the couch. Or, I could have gotten some cookies, brought them to the couch, and eaten them while sitting on it. This is ambiguity and even that would be ridiculous if you misunderstood it in context. The phrase on the test clearly had one meaning. You could not possibly have a second valid interpretation if you left the phrase the way it is. Sure, one of the words has multiple definitions that could cause confusion, but that is why context is so important. You can't extract a single word from a sentence, find an alternative definition that coincides with your argument and call the sentence ambiguous. In the current sentence structure, your interpretation is wrong. That's all there is to it. It'd be similar to this. "After 3 sections, we took a break from the test so we would be less fatigued for the last 2 sections." Of course "break" has an alternative definition, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context of that sentence. In order to use the other definition you would have to say something like, "In order to help with fatigue, they break the exam up into 2 sittings." This is not ambiguity. It is faulty reading and confusion. Deal with it.

Also, I have no intention of writing LSAC and I really don't have a dog in this fight. I think we can all agree on the fact that the game isn't going to be omitted. That's a stretch even for those of you who dig into a dictionary for a 5th definition just to make a case. I'm just really really bored in this summer class and having nothing better to do than argue on this thread.

[CryingMonkey]

Eskimo, you have the best pictures ever.

Also,

Made of low-fat creamy butter. I really don't want to get involved in these back-and-forths, though. And I'm not bored. Suffice it to say that mammalian biology is more black and white and less subject to human usage or change compared to contextuality in linguistics or philosophy of language.

I do love low-fat creamy butter. I also acknowledge that biology is somewhat more black and white than linguistics, although I might have some minor quibbles about how black-and-white mammalian biology actually is (monotremes, anybody?). My general point, however, is that the language in this question was just flat-out not ambiguous (caveat - assuming I recall the language correctly, which I'm fairly sure I do). There are ways of phrasing the rule that would have introduced signficant ambiguity, but this was not one of them.

That said, it is entirely clear that the people who have decided there was ambiguity are not going to be convinced that there wasn't - to borrow a phrase, we are committed on disagreeing over whether the language in the rule was ambiguous. Therefore, I'm going to cede the (word in question) because this isn't making my freaking score come any faster.

[citrustang]

A good number of people misinterpreting a statement is evidence that that statement can be interpreted more than one way. And that is the definition of ambiguity, assuming that the interpretation is not wrong.

Firstly, and I got this from LSAT, you are presuming what you set out to prove. That is not the definition of ambiguity. The sentence actually has to have multiple valid interpretations. You're making the assumption that the interpretation is not wrong.

If apropos includes a clause "assuming that the interpretation is not wrong," he has allowed for the possibility a particular interpretation is invalid. Allowing for that possibility means he has not made "the assumption that the interpretation is not wrong." You are confusing his argument.

[apropos]

Always striking how the most arrogantly phrased statements tend so much to also be the silliest. The point is not saying that a word is ambiguous if you, or one such person, interprets it in 20 different ways. Nor is this at all similar to believing in bigfoot, or thinking that claims that a banana is blue might make the banana blue. A good number of people misinterpreting a statement is evidence that that statement can be interpreted more than one way. And that is the definition of ambiguity, assuming that the interpretation is not wrong. I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong. At most you could argue that the interpretation is strange enough that the ambiguity is within reasonable limits. Then this thread would have much fewer way-to-strong statements and more worthwhile arguments.

Firstly, and I got this from LSAT, you are presuming what you set out to prove. That is not the definition of ambiguity. The sentence actually has to have multiple valid interpretations. You're making the assumption that the interpretation is not wrong. In the context of the test, IT IS WRONG. There is absolutely no way that in the current structure of the exam, the "alternative" definition of the term, meaning a location, could possibly be used correctly. It is not within reasonable limits. Let me give you an example.

"I ate the cookies on the couch." Well I could be eating the cookies that I happened to find sitting on the couch. Or, I could have gotten some cookies, brought them to the couch, and eaten them while sitting on it. This is ambiguity and even that would be ridiculous if you misunderstood it in context. The phrase on the test clearly had one meaning. You could not possibly have a second valid interpretation if you left the phrase the way it is. Sure, one of the words has multiple definitions that could cause confusion, but that is why context is so important. You can't extract a single word from a sentence, find an alternative definition that coincides with your argument and call the sentence ambiguous. In the current sentence structure, your interpretation is wrong. That's all there is to it. It'd be similar to this. "After 3 sections, we took a break from the test so we would be less fatigued for the last 2 sections." Of course "break" has an alternative definition, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context of that sentence. In order to use the other definition you would have to say something like, "In order to help with fatigue, they break the exam up into 2 sittings." This is not ambiguity. It is faulty reading and confusion. Deal with it.

Also, I have no intention of writing LSAC and I really don't have a dog in this fight. I think we can all agree on the fact that the game isn't going to be omitted. That's a stretch even for those of you who dig into a dictionary for a 5th definition just to make a case. I'm just really really bored in this summer class and having nothing better to do than argue on this thread.

For someone who holds a very rigid view of language, it's surprising you could misinterpret a sentence of mine you went so far as to bold. Anyways, I wish I had more time for this illuminating argument, but I don't. And too have no dog in this fight.

Keep up the good fight Citrus.

[citrustang]

Check your inbox, apropos.

[citrustang]

we are committed on disagreeing over whether the language in the rule was ambiguous.

Well summarized. That is indeed the issue up for discussion.

[upfish]

This is all going to be pretty awkward when they release the test, if it's worded the way I remember it. I can see how one COULD mistake it upon an initial reading, but I also recall some definite phrasing that contextualized it pretty well.

I didn't do very well on it, and was stressed by it and the first game, but I don't want it thrown out in case my guesses were on target!

[FuManChusco]

You guys are just picking apart my language because you can't refute what I actually said. Yes, I made an assumption myself by assuming that apropos thought the interpretation was valid. This probably had something to do with it.

I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong.

I don't see why he would be arguing with me if he didn't think it was valid, but I suppose his clause leaves his opinion open. His definition of ambiguity is wrong anyways and in the end I'm still right.

[d34d9823]

we are committed on disagreeing over whether the language in the rule was ambiguous.

So is it ambiguous whether we think the language was ambiguous?

[apropos]

You guys are just picking apart my language because you can't refute what I actually said. Yes, I made an assumption myself by assuming that apropos thought the interpretation was valid. This probably had something to do with it.

I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong.

I don't see why he would be arguing with me if he didn't think it was valid, but I suppose his clause leaves his opinion open. His definition of ambiguity is wrong anyways and in the end I'm still right.

For one thing, our definitions of ambiguous are not different. So you must still not really realize your misreading.
Me thinking (and, yes, stating) that I think this word was ambiguous should not have led you to think I was assuming the conclusion in my argument (I'm not really sure if it should have been characterized as an argument at all, but no matter).

We're disagreeing on how definite context can determine meaning and how black and white (not just obvious to you, but actually black and white factually accurate) a context can make an interpretation. And I'm arguing because you're making crazily strong statements wrapped in annoyingly arrogant language.

[cigarman]

And I was wondering what I would do to take my mind off of the worrying, waiting for results...
Now I have this thread to watch! Nobody bludgen anyone while I go make the popcorn!

[bk1]

For one thing, our definitions of ambiguous are not different. So you must still not really realize your misreading.
Me thinking (and, yes, stating) that I think this word was ambiguous should not have led you to think I was assuming the conclusion in my argument (I'm not really sure if it should have been characterized as an argument at all, but no matter).

We're disagreeing on how definite context can determine meaning and how black and white (not just obvious to you, but actually black and white factually accurate) a context can make an interpretation. And I'm arguing because you're making crazily strong statements wrapped in annoyingly arrogant language.

Why yes he is making crazily solid and stable statements.

[FuManChusco]

You guys are just picking apart my language because you can't refute what I actually said. Yes, I made an assumption myself by assuming that apropos thought the interpretation was valid. This probably had something to do with it.

I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong.

I don't see why he would be arguing with me if he didn't think it was valid, but I suppose his clause leaves his opinion open. His definition of ambiguity is wrong anyways and in the end I'm still right.

For one thing, our definitions of ambiguous are not different. So you must still not really realize your misreading.

We're disagreeing on how definite context can determine meaning and how black and white (not just obvious to you, but actually black and white factually accurate) a context can make an interpretation. And I'm arguing because you're making crazily strong statements wrapped in annoyingly arrogant language.

I'm making strong statements because I know what the language on the test was and I know the alternative interpretation is not valid in any way, shape, or form. This is black and white. The context was definite. I'm being arrogant because I think I'm better than the people on the other side of the argument and when I get my score back with a -0 LG, including the 4th game, I'm going to have a huge smile on my face. I said it before and I'll say it again, you'd have to be a fool to think it meant anything other than occupation. This is so much fun. I love being a dick on the internet when the situation calls for it.

Also, I'm pretty sure you said the definition of ambiguous was having evidence that a number of people misinterpreted a word, assuming the interpretation is valid. Maybe I'm just confused because you keep starting sentences with "and" for some reason.

[IBThatGuy]

If you personally had no difficulty arriving at the correct interpretation, kudos. But if any testers, utilizing a reasonable definition of the word, experienced any uncertainty, even minute, then the LG must be reviewed. Those of you who are arguing there was no ambiguity have a tough job: you must prove the correct interpretation "must be true," whereas I only need to argue that the incorrect interpretation "could be true" based on the prompt.

It's possible that it would suffice only to say that this particular incorrect interpretation could not be true.

Sometimes the word refers to the type of work being done, and sometimes the word refers to the area the actual work is being performed in.

Yes, "area" taken in a very broad sense.

As I understand it, "field" referring to the location where someone works is only used in the general sense of "field work" (as opposed to theoretical work or office work or whatever) and never as the descriptor of one of a set of different locations where someone might work.

This is a perfect assessment. It would be inappropriate to describe two persons in the same place as therefore being in the same field. "Field" can be distinguished from other types of settings (e.g., to use mallard's example, "office"), but it does not designate a location. The closest word for that, I think, is "theater." The fact that some people did not understand the statement doesn't mean there was a problem with the statement.

[suspicious android]

The number of complaints can be relevant. If the complaints come from a diverse group of people (a large range of scores, different regional areas, different ethnic backgrounds, some ESL and some not, etc.), then the arguments that this situation arose due to a lack of skill or a poor understanding of the English language are weakened. The challenge can be strengthened by eliminating potential weakeners.

Probably 90% of people who take the test make some sort of error in conditional reasoning because they fail to properly distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. That of course doesn't mean that such a question is flawed, just that it is challenging and requires a very strict interpretation. That's not precisely analogous, because we're talking about one specific question, not one specific type of question, but I just don't see how the number of people who complain will make any difference, as long as there is enough to bring the issue to their attention. I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

One interesting thing, and I imagine it would be the only way to get the questions thrown out, if there turns out to be little or no correlation between a person's overall score and their likelihood of getting the questions on that game correct, then the question has no predictive value and shouldn't be included. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading from a reliable source that the most recent RC question to be thrown out was not invalid per se, but had no predictive value so was omitted from scoring.

[Dany]

I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

Which question was that? I'm curious!

[380yarddrives]

Mallard hit the nail on the head. If someone asks (in regards to occupation), "What ___ are you in?" there is only one way to answer. "Radiology" would be a good example for a proper response.

If you state the physical location of your place of employment you have not answered the question, "New Jersey" is not a proper response, even by the alternative definition provided on the first page of this post. Some say this is a stretch...it's not a reasonable stretch, it's irrational.

[suspicious android]

I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

Which question was that? I'm curious!

the question about the bear population in a wildlife refuge.. it was in preptest 58, september 09, one of the last 3-4 questions on an LR section.

[Dany]

I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

Which question was that? I'm curious!

the question about the bear population in a wildlife refuge.. it was in preptest 58, september 09, one of the last 3-4 questions on an LR section.

Ohhhhh with the road built through a certain area of the refuge? I remember that one. So tough!

[Knock]

I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

Which question was that? I'm curious!

the question about the bear population in a wildlife refuge.. it was in preptest 58, september 09, one of the last 3-4 questions on an LR section.

I remember that one. It was pretty challenging but I figured out the credited response.

[zworykin]

I'm sure they received dozens of complaints about the bear question last fall, and I remember lots of people being sure that question would be thrown out (it had a thread to rival the this thread and the dinosaurs thread).

Which question was that? I'm curious!

the question about the bear population in a wildlife refuge.. it was in preptest 58, september 09, one of the last 3-4 questions on an LR section.

I remember that one. It was pretty challenging but I figured out the credited response.

Aye. I had to reread the stimulus, but the credited response was fairly clear.

[apropos]

You guys are just picking apart my language because you can't refute what I actually said. Yes, I made an assumption myself by assuming that apropos thought the interpretation was valid. This probably had something to do with it.

I have a very strong feeling that the interpretation is not flat-out wrong.

I don't see why he would be arguing with me if he didn't think it was valid, but I suppose his clause leaves his opinion open. His definition of ambiguity is wrong anyways and in the end I'm still right.

For one thing, our definitions of ambiguous are not different. So you must still not really realize your misreading.

We're disagreeing on how definite context can determine meaning and how black and white (not just obvious to you, but actually black and white factually accurate) a context can make an interpretation. And I'm arguing because you're making crazily strong statements wrapped in annoyingly arrogant language.

I'm making strong statements because I know what the language on the test was and I know the alternative interpretation is not valid in any way, shape, or form. This is black and white. The context was definite. I'm being arrogant because I think I'm better than the people on the other side of the argument and when I get my score back with a -0 LG, including the 4th game, I'm going to have a huge smile on my face. I said it before and I'll say it again, you'd have to be a fool to think it meant anything other than occupation. This is so much fun. I love being a dick on the internet when the situation calls for it.

Also, I'm pretty sure you said the definition of ambiguous was having evidence that a number of people misinterpreted a word, assuming the interpretation is valid. Maybe I'm just confused because you keep starting sentences with "and" for some reason.

I had a minute, so I just went ahead and bolded all the places where your statements are just too strong. Watch out for that. Sometimes one can have very reasonable thoughts but come off as irrational because the language is too strong for the level of certainty that is warranted.

If starting sentences with "and" confuses you, well, I think that somewhat compromises your view that you have a superior grasp on the english language. Further compromising your view is your confusion over my use of the word "assuming." The meaning of that word is far more clear in that context than <arguably ambiguous word in question> was on that LG.

This is seriously a waste of time. Everyone involved in this argument used the correct interpretation on the game. The only difference is that you don't see how it could have validly (though less so) been interpreted another way.