PrepTest 124

Incorrect. This argument uses the recent trend to draw a determination that the coin in question shouldn't conform to the average since it's not fair, thus providing a reason to believe a specific outcome is more likely. Since it gives a reason to believe that, it's not committing The Gambler's Fallacy and is wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Airlines average 1 accident/5 years, so an airline without an accident over 5 years is due for one, and thus travelers should ride on airlines that have recently had an accident.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument commits a frequent (but less common) flaw seen on the LSAT—The Gambler's Fallacy.

In The Gambler's Fallacy, the averages for given outcomes overall are used to determine the likelihood of a specific instance, and the failure or presence of an outcome to happen recently is seen as influencing the likelihood in that specific instance.

In other words, it uses stats to argue that something is due."

Much like the gambler who sees the roulette ball land of red 5 times in a row and so predicts there's a much better than average chance the next time it will land on black, this argument uses the recency of an airline having an accident and the averages for that frequency to state that accident—free airlines are "due" for one, and thus should be avoided.

Let's find an answer that makes a similarly flawed recommendation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer uses the lack of something happening that the average would say should have happened as influencing what will happen in the future. In other words, this argument features The Gambler's Fallacy. It applies the average likelihood that a baboon will become dominant to a specific one to determine that he's "due, predicting he'll become dominant.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT uses stats or averages to argue something is due" to happen, the argument is committing The Gambler's Fallacy. It's a less common timeline/number flaw on the exam, but it's an important one to know.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't commit The Gambler's Fallacy, treating someone as being just as likely to be in an accident despite them living somewhere for 5 years. This argument instead assumes that Marty is an average resident.

Incorrect. This argument always speaks to averages, and it's also arguably valid, so we can rule it out. It doesn't predict anything about the future, either!

Incorrect. While this answer does make a prediction about the future based on current trends, it doesn't assume that an outcome that hasn't happened in a while is due—it assumes that an outcome that has happened a given percentage of the time will continue to happen with that likelihood.