UCAT: Decision Making

[dotwingz]

Yeah in the English definition 'some A are B' is reasonably true. But in the UCAT, some is probably better thought of as some but not all or between 0% < x < 100% (not inclusive of 0 nor 100).

So the statement Some (but not all) A is B, is false

I dont know about Some B is A, because technically we don't know that there exists B that isn't A, so its technically possible to have 100% of B being A, and then the 'some' definition is false. But i have a tendency to otherthink DM so ill let someone else answer that for me.

 

[fm8]

Yeah in the English definition 'some A are B' is reasonably true. But in the UCAT, some is probably better thought of as some but not all or between 0% < x < 100% (not inclusive of 0 nor 100).

So the statement Some (but not all) A is B, is false

I dont know about Some B is A, because technically we don't know that there exists B that isn't A, so its technically possible to have 100% of B being A, and then the 'some' definition is false. But i have a tendency to otherthink DM so ill let someone else answer that for me.

hmm I get what you mean, because all B's could be A's as well, which would make 'some' Incorrect. So it would specifically need to say that 'at least some' B's are A's. because "at least some" = x > 0% (including 100%)
But I just wanted to confirm that if all A's are B's then you cannot have 'No B's are A's'??? there has to be at least "some B's are A's"

 

[dotwingz]

“At least some B’s are A’s” means that some or all of B’s are A’s. Ie 0 < x <= 100%

Because all A’s are B’s, at least some B’s are A’s

 

[Penny Lane]

DM section is harder than I was anticipating Is this section upsetting anyone else at the moment?

 

[fm8]

DM section is harder than I was anticipating Is this section upsetting anyone else at the moment?

it is really hard, but I am taking notes on what I am getting wrong, the techniques used are similar despite being quite complex.

 

[fm8]

So I put down NO for statement 5 because, it doesn't specify whether Thursday was their first and only interview, they could have had an interview on Wednesday and both were called back for another interview on Thursday. Am I reading too much into it?

My main question is, where do you draw the line?? should I assume that there was only 1 set of interviews taken place because it doesn't specify? but isn't that the whole point, you have to specify? ok I think I'm spiralling

 

[Penny Lane]

it is really hard, but I am taking notes on what I am getting wrong, the techniques used are similar despite being quite complex.

What sort of notes are you making to help with it? Even doing untimed and taking my time I’m still getting 50% of them wrong. It is so disheartening!

 

[fm8]

What sort of notes are you making to help with it? Even doing untimed and taking my time I’m still getting 50% of them wrong. It is so disheartening!

what are you getting wrong in particular?
for drawing conclusions, you use the

• “All” = 100%
• “Some” = less than 100% but not including 0 or 100%
• “At least some” is not the same as “some”, it includes 100% [1, all]
• “not all” is not the same as “some”, it includes 0%
  "Most" = greater than 50% (does not equal all, so not including 100%

for probability, id recommend go through the probability chapter in year 10-12 math text books. I even did year 8 and 9, also for Venn diagrams.

and for strongest argument, you write the common patterns in the answers that your finding.
Like, statement must relate to every aspect of the stem and not specify, it must not target a specific group when the text relates to everyone, it cannot bring in new information... and so on

hope this helps!

 

[ucatboy]

• “All” = 100%
• “Some” = less than 100% but not including 0 or 100%
• “At least some” is not the same as “some”, it includes 100% [1, all]
• “not all” is not the same as “some”, it includes 0%
  "Most" = greater than 50% (does not equal all, so not including 100%

Where did you get these definitions from? One of them seems to contradict with what I remember learning during practice.

 

[fm8]

Where did you get these definitions from? One of them seems to contradict with what I remember learning during practice.

i got the information from this thread, the details of the "some" "most" "all" definitions can be found in earlier post.
Also when you do the 'question banks' practice questions on the official ucat site will agree with these definitions. someone had emailed pearson vue to find out exactly what 'some' had meant. Although, there are courses that you can buy (not allowed to name) define "some" as 0-100%, in the actual exam this is not correct.

 

[A1]

i got the information from this thread, the details of the "some" "most" "all" definitions can be found in earlier post.

I have had headaches with Pearson on this "all" vs "some". Here's a simple example:

A jar contains hundreds of M&Ms, all of which are red.
You are given 10 M&Ms out of this jar.
Conclusion : Some of your M&Ms are red - True or False.

According to Pearson it's False, because the phrase implies some of your M&Ms are not red which is false.

However in formal Syllogism it's True. Scroll down to the Barbari illustration in this link > Syllogism

All Greeks are men, All men are mortal
Therefore, Some Greeks are mortal is a valid conclusion.

So when anyone sees a contradiction you need to check whether they are following Pearson or Syllogism.

 

[ucatboy]

i got the information from this thread, the details of the "some" "most" "all" definitions can be found in earlier post.
Also when you do the 'question banks' practice questions on the official ucat site will agree with these definitions. someone had emailed pearson vue to find out exactly what 'some' had meant. Although, there are courses that you can buy (not allowed to name) define "some" as 0-100%, in the actual exam this is not correct.

I believe that "not all" is 100% identical in definition to "some", i.e. it doesn't include 0 either. Source: Decision Making

 

[dotwingz]

I believe that "not all" is 100% identical in definition to "some", i.e. it doesn't include 0 either. Source: Decision Making

One would think that not all means the negation of 100% or [0, 1)... but good source nonetheless. I dont understand why Pearson's gotta muck things up

 

[fm8]

I believe that "not all" is 100% identical in definition to "some", i.e. it doesn't include 0 either. Source: Decision Making

I have taken 'not all' to be anything but all, so anything from: nothing to 99%

not all apples are red...
This to me, does not mean that some apples are red. it just means that some apples can be red, but doesn't necessarily mean some apples are definitely red.

so "some" is 'definitive'
where as "not all" is 'can be'

does anyone else agree with this?

 

[A1]

I have taken 'not all' to be anything but all, so anything from: nothing to 99%.

Depends who you are dealing with.

For Pearson the above phrase is read as [ (not-all-apples) are red ], it implies there must exist some red apple(s)
so "not all" = "some" as a UCAT official has indicated.

In your way & syllogism it's read as [ not (all-apples-are-red) ], so even with zero red apple the (all-apples-are-red) is false and the not in front makes the phrase true.

Your interpretation is not incorrect, but if you want to chance it with UCAT/Pearson good luck

 

[fm8]

Depends who you are dealing with.

For Pearson the above phrase is read as [ (not-all-apples) are red ], it implies there must exist some red apple(s)
so "not all" = "some" as a UCAT official has indicated.

In your way & syllogism it's read as [ not (all-apples-are-red) ], so even with zero red apple the phrase is true.

Your interpretation is not incorrect, but if you want to chance it with UCAT/Pearson good luck

ok so based on ucat 'not all' does mean some? i had originally trained my brain to think that way but then read somewhere that Pearson includes 0 for the, 'not all' phrase?

honestly this whole thing is so confusing, they should have a definition list available

 

[A1]

they should have a definition list available

At your service - scroll down to the Decision Making Definitions > UCAT Subtests | UCAT Consortium

Not all = 1-99%
Some = An undetermined number being more than one but less than all.

(Btw shouldn't it be more than zero?)

 

[dotwingz]

I think that’s just a typo. Especially considering the next line is A part of it, not all of it.

 

[tksm]

At your service - scroll down to the Decision Making Definitions > UCAT Subtests | UCAT Consortium

Not all = 1-99%
Some = An undetermined number being more than one but less than all.

(Btw shouldn't it be more than zero?)

Maybe they're referring to discrete objects? e.g. if you say "some students", you would think more than (but not equal to) one.

 

[ucatboy]

I have taken 'not all' to be anything but all, so anything from: nothing to 99%

not all apples are red...
This to me, does not mean that some apples are red. it just means that some apples can be red, but doesn't necessarily mean some apples are definitely red.

so "some" is 'definitive'
where as "not all" is 'can be'

does anyone else agree with this?

In your initial post you acknowledged that Pearson has the final say in how quantifiers are defined, so while I completely agree with your reasoning here, there's no point arguing something that can't be changed. Some = not all = 1-99.

The screenshot is of an email received directly from Pearson, that's as official of a source as you're going to get.