UCAT: Decision Making

[cocodreams]

View attachment 3661
Take a look at this official DM question. cocodreams

Yeah I remember doing this! Why was the last part 'yes' again? I believe I had gotten that wrong because of assumption/inference confusion

 

[sunnyrain]

Hello!
It's 'yes' because in the stem it says 'the economic success of resource rich regions further reinforces this correlation'.
That is, this can mean that regions or countries with vast gold and iron deposits (that is, resource rich regions) have financial success(last statement). It sort of has the same meaning as the part in the stem.

 

[hazell]

hey guys, for this question I can't wrap my head around why it's wrong- I'm assuming as it's not an official resource it uses the wrong definition of not all/some. "not all" = some, so "not all chefs (some chefs) at the restaurant can dice. But the question explicitly states that all the chefs were not able to dice. Am I wrong or is the answer provided wrong lol, thanks in advance!!

 

[N182]

hey guys, for this question I can't wrap my head around why it's wrong- I'm assuming as it's not an official resource it uses the wrong definition of not all/some. "not all" = some, so "not all chefs (some chefs) at the restaurant can dice. But the question explicitly states that all the chefs were not able to dice. Am I wrong or is the answer provided wrong lol, thanks in advance!! View attachment 3665

You're right, not all doesn't include zero.

 

[hazell]

You're right, not all doesn't include zero.

awesome thank you !!

 

[A1]

so "not all chefs (some chefs) at the restaurant can dice

I need English expert LMG! to help me out with this.

The question stem says "All the chefs at the restaurant were able to slice, but not able to dice". Is this sentence equivalent to

a) All the chefs at the restaurant were able to slice, but they all were not able to dice
or
b) All the chefs at the restaurant were able to slice, but not all the chefs were able to dice.

 

[dani01]

Hi! would someone be able to help me with this question? my only problem is that I just can't understand the graph, I'm having trouble reading and comprehending the information? Is it the white or the graph on the graph that shows the amount? because if its the white why does NREM have none? but if its grey this means he was in NREM for the whole time even when asleep? TIA

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Hi! would someone be able to help me with this question? my only problem is that I just can't understand the graph, I'm having trouble reading and comprehending the information? Is it the white or the graph on the graph that shows the amount? because if its the white why does NREM have none? but if its grey this means he was in NREM for the whole time even when asleep? TIA

Prefaced by: in my opinion!!

Okay, so that’s a sleep cycle graph, his sleep is characterised by the white portion and the labels on the vertical axis apply to the faint line immediately above them. He has small amounts of NREM sleep, all of which occurs in the first 3/4s of the evening.

ETA: his sleep pattern goes awake, light sleep, NREM, light, REM, light, NREM, light, REM, light, NREM, light, REM, light, REM, light, REM, awake.

 

[garmonbozia]

Hi! would someone be able to help me with this question? my only problem is that I just can't understand the graph, I'm having trouble reading and comprehending the information? Is it the white or the graph on the graph that shows the amount? because if its the white why does NREM have none? but if its grey this means he was in NREM for the whole time even when asleep? TIA

How tall the grey bit is indicates the 'stage' of sleep he is in. E.g. at 10 pm he is in the awake stage, at 11:30 pm in the NREM stage, at 5 am in the light stage, and so on. He's only in one stage at a time, naturally. (IMO this is a poorly designed graphic -- the fact that it's shaded below the line makes it unnecessarily confusing.)

The diagram below should clarify how to read this sort of graph -- just follow the line.

 

[dani01]

How tall the grey bit is indicates the 'stage' of sleep he is in. E.g. at 10 pm he is in the awake stage, at 11:30 pm in the NREM stage, at 5 am in the light stage, and so on. He's only in one stage at a time, naturally. (IMO this is a poorly designed graphic -- the fact that it's shaded below the line makes it unnecessarily confusing.)

The diagram below should clarify how to read this sort of graph -- just follow the line.
View attachment 3673

Prefaced by: in my opinion!!

Okay, so that’s a sleep cycle graph, his sleep is characterised by the white portion and the labels on the vertical axis apply to the faint line immediately above them. He has small amounts of NREM sleep, all of which occurs in the first 3/4s of the evening.

ETA: his sleep pattern goes awake, light sleep, NREM, light, REM, light, NREM, light, REM, light, NREM, light, REM, light, REM, light, REM, awake.

thankyou both so much! makes so much sense now

 

[sunnyrain]

.

 

[whys]

Hello everyone.
For the first statement, would this be marked incorrect by the official Pearson test meaning? Since 'some' means not all. Or would they mark it as correct since it says 'at least'?
View attachment 3674

Pearson would also mark it correctly. 'At least some' is not the same as 'some'. At least some is (1,all] where all is included.

 

[nb]

Pearson would also mark it correctly. 'At least some' is not the same as 'some'. At least some is (1,all] where all is included.

Just a correction, it is [1,all]

 

[nb]

Someone pls explain this... There are only 2 combinations possible, since we know first is a boy.
combination 1: BB
combination 2: BG
So probability of having one girl is just 1/2. WHERE is the third combination that the answer is talking about????

 

[2xq]

View attachment 3679

Someone pls explain this... There are only 2 combinations possible, since we know first is a boy.
combination 1: BB
combination 2: BG
So probability of having one girl is just 1/2. WHERE is the third combination that the answer is talking about????

There are 3 ways the family can have one boy. BB, GB, BG. Thus, if they were to have a daughter as well, it would be 2/3 hence, D.

...and yes... GB and BG are different. Order matters!

 

[ucatboy]

View attachment 3679

Someone pls explain this... There are only 2 combinations possible, since we know first is a boy.
combination 1: BB
combination 2: BG
So probability of having one girl is just 1/2. WHERE is the third combination that the answer is talking about????

This is a bit of a mindfk but it makes sense:

There are four possible combinations for two children: BB, GG, BG, GB.
The fact that there is at least one son removes GG and leaves three combinations: BB, BG and GB.

The probability of having one girl is therefore 2/3, because when they say there's at least one son, they do not specify whether they are referring to the first child being a son or the second - these are two separate outcomes.

This question reminds me a lot of the Monty Hall problem.

EDIT: your answer would be correct only if the question said: "the FIRST child (as opposed to any one of the children) is a son ..."

 

[nb]

This is a bit of a mindfk but it makes sense:

There are four possible combinations for two children: BB, GG, BG, GB.
The fact that there is at least one son removes GG and leaves three combinations: BB, BG and GB.

The probability of having one girl is therefore 2/3, because when they say there's at least one son, they do not specify whether they are referring to the first child being a son or the second - these are two separate outcomes.

This question reminds me a lot of the Monty Hall problem.

EDIT: your answer would be correct only if the question said: "the FIRST child (as opposed to any one of the children) is a son ..."

What if a question asked find the probability that 2 children are girls given the first is a male (out of total 3 children born).
I would do this: BGG Is the only way this is possible.
So is 1/4 the answer? Why isnt it 1/2 because can't the two girls born be born in different orders? Or does it not matter in this case? Why does it no matter? It mattered in the last case..?

 

[N182]

What if a question asked find the probability that 2 children are girls given the first is a male (out of total 3 children born).
I would do this: BGG Is the only way this is possible.
So is 1/4 the answer? Why isnt it 1/2 because can't the two girls born be born in different orders? Or does it not matter in this case? Why does it no matter? It mattered in the last case..?

then out of BBB, BGB, BBG,BGG only 1 satisfies the condition so 1/4. This takes into consideration order.

 

[ucatboy]

What if a question asked find the probability that 2 children are girls given the first is a male (out of total 3 children born).
I would do this: BGG Is the only way this is possible.
So is 1/4 the answer? Why isnt it 1/2 because can't the two girls born be born in different orders? Or does it not matter in this case? Why does it no matter? It mattered in the last case..?

When you say the "first", do you mean the "first-born", or at least one of the three children is a male?

 

[nb]

then out of BBB, BGB, BBG,BGG only 1 satisfies the condition so 1/4. This takes into consideration order.

OHHH if it said 1 girl however, we would multiply it by 2 because there are 2 ways in which we can get that right??
So it'll be ( 1/2 * 1/2 ) *2 = 1/2