UCAT: Decision Making

[Achiever]

I've messaged UCAT on ig about this and I'm waiting for a response...
Can anyone confirm to me whether I'm incorrect or UCAT is blatantly contradicting their recent statements in the question banks they have put out!

In this example it is an ASSUMPTION to say that "Some Europeans do not like trekking" because for all we know from the question all Europeans could not like trekking. Given what UCAT has said about "Some≠all" it is wrong to say that "Some Europeans do not like trekking" because ALL Europeans could not like trekking. See where I'm going here?

Another Example:

We only know of this one example of a substandard product being "useful and trendy". So to say that "Some substandard products are useful and trendy" is a conclusion that CANT be drawn! Given that all substandard products could be useful and trendy and, once again, SOME≠ALL.

This frustrates me because it's hard to gain a consensus on this from them. Do I follow my reasoning, or this question bank's reasoning when I sit the exam? One would think the question bank, but then UCAT replies agreeing with me, thus contradicting their mocks. These question make up one-third of the section!

 

[N182]

I've messaged UCAT on ig about this and I'm waiting for a response...
Can anyone confirm to me whether I'm incorrect or UCAT is blatantly contradicting their recent statements in the question banks they have put out!
View attachment 3799
In this example it is an ASSUMPTION to say that "Some Europeans do not like trekking" because for all we know from the question all Europeans could not like trekking. Given what UCAT has said about "Some≠all" it is wrong to say that "Some Europeans do not like trekking" because ALL Europeans could not like trekking. See where I'm going here?

Another Example:
View attachment 3800
We only know of this one example of a substandard product being "useful and trendy". So to say that "Some substandard products are useful and trendy" is a conclusion that CANT be drawn! Given that all substandard products could be useful and trendy and, once again, SOME≠ALL.

This frustrates me because it's hard to gain a consensus on this from them. Do I follow my reasoning, or this question bank's reasoning when I sit the exam? One would think the question bank, but then UCAT replies agreeing with me, thus contradicting their mocks. These question make up one-third of the section!

Yeah that is quite frustrating, but I think go with SOME≠ALL. as a) this is more recent compared to the official questions (which are prob 10 years old) and b) The email is from the test-writers so it is clear that their intent is SOME≠ALL.

 

[Achiever]

Yeah that is quite frustrating, but I think go with SOME≠ALL. as a) this is more recent compared to the official questions (which are prob 10 years old) and b) The email is from the test-writers so it is clear that their intent is SOME≠ALL.

Cheers, has anyone else scored well in DM using some≠all and would agree with my answers. here? That would suggest to me that my thinking is correct, and I should go with my gut of "some≠all"!

 

[A1]

I've messaged UCAT on ig about this and I'm waiting for a response...
Can anyone confirm to me whether I'm incorrect or UCAT is blatantly contradicting their recent statements in the question banks they have put out!

To me this does NOT contradict UCAT saying Some ≠ All.

Given all the tourists at the resort do not like trekking, if the conclusion were some Europeans *at the resort* do not like trekking it would be No. But some Europeans do not like trekking is Yes since all the tourists at the resort are only some, not all, of Europeans at large.

 

[N182]

To me this does NOT contradict UCAT saying Some ≠ All.

Given all the tourists at the resort do not like trekking, if the conclusion were some Europeans *at the resort* do not like trekking it would be No. But some Europeans do not like trekking is Yes since all the tourists at the resort are only some, not all, of Europeans at large.

But isn't there a possibility that all other europeans who aren't at the resort do not like trekking? Don't you put no if there is even a possibility of it being false?

 

[A1]

But isn't there a possibility that all other europeans who aren't at the resort do not like trekking? Don't you put no if there is even a possibility of it being false?

My interpretation is if you are given All (of a certain set), you cannot reduce it to Some of that set due to All ≠ Some.
Otoh saying this All = Some of a larger general set is valid, regardless whether the condition is true for all or only some of the larger set.

 

[Achiever]

My interpretation is if you are given All (of a certain set), you cannot reduce it to Some of that set due to All ≠ Some.
Otoh saying this All = Some of a larger general set is valid, regardless whether the condition is true for all or only some of the larger set.

I understand where you're coming from. I don't know whether I necessarily agree with it - based upon their prior statements. But it is great to finally understand what their perspective of the question is and gain some clarity.
Cheers.

Am I right in saying it is linked to the smaller "some" set not being able to quantify the larger "all" set as it cannot be representative of the larger?

 

[A1]

Am I right in saying it is linked to the smaller "some" set not being able to quantify the larger "all" set as it cannot be representative of the larger?

Yes, something like that. Let me illustrate this way:

- You are given All trees in this park have pink leaves. UCAT doesn't allow you to transcribe that to Some trees in this park have pink leaves, since (according to UCAT) that also carries the meaning some trees in this park don't have pink leaves - this part contradics the given premise.

- But saying Some trees (in the world) have pink leaves is valid. Whether all the trees outside this park have pink leaves or not falls into the "Don't Care" category, they don't affect the validity of these Some trees being All the trees in this park.

 

[Achiever]

Yes, something like that. Let me illustrate this way:

- You are given All trees in this park have pink leaves. UCAT doesn't allow you to transcribe that to Some trees in this park have pink leaves, since (according to UCAT) that also carries the meaning some trees in this park don't have pink leaves - this part contradics the given premise.

- But saying Some trees (in the world) have pink leaves is valid. Whether all the trees outside this park have pink leaves or not falls into the "Don't Care" category, they don't affect the validity of these Some trees being All the trees in this park.

Makes sense. Just seems weird that without sufficient information one should go with "Yes" instead of "No".

 

[Noodlemeister]

What does "nor" mean in UCAT syllogisms?

E.g. is "People standing up do not have X nor Y" the same as saying "People standing up have neither X or Y".

 

[A1]

What does "nor" mean in UCAT syllogisms?
E.g. is "People standing up do not have X nor Y" the same as saying "People standing up have neither X or Y".

By normal usage I don't think we can say neither or, it's neither nor.

[neither X nor Y] is equal [not (X or Y)] equal to [not X *and* not Y]

 

[Noodlemeister]

By normal usage I don't think we can say neither or, it's neither nor.

[neither X nor Y] is equal to [not X *and* not Y]

So essentially, "or" means 1 or the other is true.

 

[A1]

So essentially, "or" means 1 or the other is true.

My understanding is by syllogism, "or" means one or the other or both can be true. "Either or" means not both.

 

[labs]

I am quite confused with the usage of the phrase, "some A's are B's and the rest are C's". The official UCAT Question Tutorial and Official Exam C appear to use conflicting definitions.

In the first question, the solutions basically state that although some of the children are girls, we do not know whether they are asleep or not. However, we do know that all of the boys are asleep (as they are included in the "rest").

image.png

1 file sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

we.tl

In this second question, the wording is very similar but the conclusion appears to be conflicting. Here, if we use the same reasoning as the previous question, we know that some of the adults like football (but we don't know whether these adults are at the cinema or not). All the adults who do like football, as well as all the children must be included in the "rest of", and so they must all be the cinema. This reasoning leads to the incorrect answer for part (c).

image (1).png

1 file sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

we.tl

I would really appreciate it if someone could please clarify this for me.

 

[Scorpion]

I am quite confused with the usage of the phrase, "some A's are B's and the rest are C's". The official UCAT Question Tutorial and Official Exam C appear to use conflicting definitions.

In the first question, the solutions basically state that although some of the children are girls, we do not know whether they are asleep or not. However, we do know that all of the boys are asleep (as they are included in the "rest").

image.png

1 file sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

we.tl

In this second question, the wording is very similar but the conclusion appears to be conflicting. Here, if we use the same reasoning as the previous question, we know that some of the adults like football (but we don't know whether these adults are at the cinema or not). All the adults who do like football, as well as all the children must be included in the "rest of", and so they must all be the cinema. This reasoning leads to the incorrect answer for part (c).

image (1).png

1 file sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

we.tl

I would really appreciate it if someone could please clarify this for me.

In the first question, the only group of girls excluded from 'the rest' are children of Mrs Baker. There may very well be other children who are girls and are thus included in the rest, who are sleeping. Therefore, some of the girls could be sleeping, making the 5th conclusion (that none of the girls are sleeping) false.

In the second question, the phrase 'rest of' is placed after the sentence about some adults liking football. This means that 'the rest of the club' excludes the adults who like football. Therefore, all other members of the club are at the cinema, but the adults who like football are not. Thus we can conclude that any adult at the cinema must not belong to the subset who like football. I think you are getting caught on the fact that the question stem didn't explicitly state that the adults who like football didn't attend the cinema, but their exclusion from the larger group allows you to make this logical step.

So in both cases, it's important to establish what group is excluded from the rest. In question 1, it's the girls who are children of Mrs Baker (not necessarily all the girls in the group). In question 2, it's all the adults who like football (not necessarily all the adults). As these groups are separated from the 'rest', it logically follows that they are not behaving like 'the rest' are.

Hope it helps!

 

[labs]

In the first question, the only group of girls excluded from 'the rest' are children of Mrs Baker. There may very well be other children who are girls and are thus included in the rest, who are sleeping. Therefore, some of the girls could be sleeping, making the 5th conclusion (that none of the girls are sleeping) false.

In the second question, the phrase 'rest of' is placed after the sentence about some adults liking football. This means that 'the rest of the club' excludes the adults who like football. Therefore, all other members of the club are at the cinema, but the adults who like football are not. Thus we can conclude that any adult at the cinema must not belong to the subset who like football. I think you are getting caught on the fact that the question stem didn't explicitly state that the adults who like football didn't attend the cinema, but their exclusion from the larger group allows you to make this logical step.

So in both cases, it's important to establish what group is excluded from the rest. In question 1, it's the girls who are children of Mrs Baker (not necessarily all the girls in the group). In question 2, it's all the adults who like football (not necessarily all the adults). As these groups are separated from the 'rest', it logically follows that they are not behaving like 'the rest' are.

Hope it helps!

By your logic, Mrs Baker's children who are girls must be awake. However, if you look at part (c) of the question, the answer to "some of the girls are awake" is NO. So I am still confused.

 

[Scorpion]

By your logic, Mrs Baker's children who are girls must be awake. However, if you look at part (c) of the question, the answer to "some of the girls are awake" is NO. So I am still confused.

Yes, the girls belonging to Mrs Baker are awake and all the other children are asleep. However, there are two possibilities describing the sleeping children (a.k.a. 'the rest'):

1. They are a mix of boys and girls. This makes the conclusion true as some of the girls (but not all) are awake.
2. They are all boys. This makes the conclusion false as all, not some, girls are awake. Remember, some is not the same as all. The question never tells us that there are girls who are not Mrs Baker's children.

As we only need to find one scenario in which a conclusion doesn't follow for the answer to be 'No', we must answer 'No' to statement 3.

 

[labs]

Yes, the girls belonging to Mrs Baker are awake and all the other children are asleep. However, there are two possibilities describing the sleeping children (a.k.a. 'the rest'):

1. They are a mix of boys and girls. This makes the conclusion true as some of the girls (but not all) are awake.
2. They are all boys. This makes the conclusion false as all, not some, girls are awake. Remember, some is not the same as all. The question never tells us that there are girls who are not Mrs Baker's children.

As we only need to find one scenario in which a conclusion doesn't follow for the answer to be 'No', we must answer 'No' to statement 3.

But the statement says "some" of Mrs Baker's children are girls This means that not all of them are girls, meaning some of them must be boys. We already know that there is a mix of boys and girls.

 

[Scorpion]

But the statement says "some" of Mrs Baker's children are girls This means that not all of them are girls, meaning some of them must be boys. We already know that there is a mix of boys and girls.

You are correct in that there is already a mix of boys and girls in the set of children who are both awake and asleep. What we do not know is whether there is a mix in the children who are asleep alone. Neither of the possibilities I stated involved girls alone. There are always boys among the sleeping children, but we do not know whether there are girls too.

Consider the possibility that Mrs Baker's daughters are the only girls out of all the children. As Mrs Baker's girls are awake, all of the girls are awake and only boys are sleeping. This makes it incorrect to say that 'some' of the girls in the group are awake, as all of them are awake and some is not the same as all.

Apologies for the confusion, but when I stated 'a mix of boys and girls' I meant a mix of boys and girls within the sleeping population (ie. what the question stem calls, 'the rest'), excluding those who are awake. The question stem tells us that there are a mix of boys and girls initially, but you must also consider the possibility that the entirety of the 'girls' category fits inside the 'Mrs Baker's children' category. I don't generally advocate for Venn Diagrams to be drawn but doing so may help you to map out the possibilities.

Hope that makes sense

 

[kcx]

Hey, would some mind explaining this question for me. Not really understanding the last part of the explanation.