|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
People who do not understand the laws of probability often [#permalink]
 09 Jun 2004, 11:55
Question Stats:
100% (02:04) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Note: For those who never attempted to support their answer, this is your chance! It's good practice if you do. People who do not understand the laws of probability often explain random happenings as the work of supernatural forces. Those people would be much less likely to believe in the supernatural if they had knowledge of statistical probability. The author of the above would agree most with which of the following? A) supernatural forces must obey the laws of probability B) there is a scientific explanation for every occurence C) phenomenology is a valid form of understanding D) knowledge of the laws of probability reduces the likelihood of a person believing in the supernatural E) natural causes produce random happenings
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
A. IMHO Not an answer --> What the hell would make them do that. They won't be supernatural otherwise.
B. IMHO Not an answer --> There may be an explaination for some. Also this is very strong statement.
C. IMHO Not an answer --> Very generic. Experimenting can also be a valid form of understanding
D. IMHO Not an answer --> What if a graduate of premier statistical institute with a degree in advanced stochastic process wants to be Harry Porter?
E. Answer The reasoning behind this can be looked in the argument. This is an assumption. So it's the nature which obeys laws of statistics and every now and then does what ever it has to do which is believed by some as being done by spernatural forces.
If something is rare then it may make some believe that it is due to some supernatural force. But it may happen once in a blue moon. Probability proves that the events were suppose to happen because the numbers said and not because of supernatural forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with (D) on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Supernatural forces [#permalink]
09 Jun 2004, 14:16
Paul wrote: Note: For those who never attempted to support their answer, this is your chance! It's good practice if you do.
People who do not understand the laws of probability often explain random happenings as the work of supernatural forces. Those people would be much less likely to believe in the supernatural if they had knowledge of statistical probability.
The author of the above would agree most with which of the following?
A) supernatural forces must obey the laws of probability
B) there is a scientific explanation for every occurence
C) phenomenology is a valid form of understanding
D) knowledge of the laws of probability reduces the likelihood of a person believing in the supernatural
E) natural causes produce random happenings
I will second Anand's choice, D it is for me too
A --> passage doesn't state this. Saying this would be like saying, probability is God's boss and orders him what to do
B --> wrong again, passage doesn't state this
C -->wrong
D --) concurs with Authors opinion that, if you understand probability there is less likelyhood that you would interpret happenings as the work of supernatural forces
E --not stated
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 308
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Another vote for D here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 41
Location: Boston
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with D,
This is from the argument. It is rephrased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 428
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
(D) definitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
OA is D. Bhai, we are looking for a similar line of reasoning than that of the author, not an assumption.
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: OA is D. Bhai, we are looking for a similar line of reasoning than that of the author, not an assumption.
All that crap for nothing. Over analysis always hurts me. I have learned that the first call is usually right for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
but all that analysis helps you better understand the answer and why your reasoning was wrong (or right). Keep it up!
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 428
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Would like to add more to paul's point.
When I joined this group, I was very bad with my verbal skills!
And today, I feel lot more confident and my verbal skills are now much more improved.
Thanks to all the members for such great discussions, believe me these discussions do help you if you read them carefully and try to inculcate these discussions in your daily GMAT practice.
(Just my thought, wanted to share with you people.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
Thanks folks, I really appreciate your kind words and help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
