UCAT: Decision Making

[Dark Horse]

Hey all, just wanted to ask about 'some' and what it means as it does tend to change from the official UCAT resources (on the official website) and other websites. For the third part of this question, the answer they have given is yes. You could have the scenario where all Europeans dislike trekking so shouldn't the answer be no here? Some means that there are Europeans who like trekking which we can't conclude? (btw this screenshot is from the official ucat resource bank)

Hi Coma,
I think what has tripped you up here is a common mistake made in the UCAT - making assumptions from the data given, rather than just using the information presented.
In this scenario we can be 100% certain that there are a proportion of (or 'some') Europeans who do not like hiking. This information is provided as there are no tourists at the resort who like hiking, and all the tourists at the resort are European.
However, we cannot conclude that ALL Europeans dislike hiking as there is no information provided about this. Therefore, we cannot assume that this statement is incorrect on the basis of this information we do not have. To conclude that this statement does not follow, we would be making an assumption that all Europeans must have the same likes and dislikes as this sample at the resort.
At the end of the day, this is one part of one question in a test which has quite a few questions.
All the best with your UCAT prep.

 

[ucatboy]

Hi Coma,
I think what has tripped you up here is a common mistake made in the UCAT - making assumptions from the data given, rather than just using the information presented.
In this scenario we can be 100% certain that there are a proportion of (or 'some') Europeans who do not like hiking. This information is provided as there are no tourists at the resort who like hiking, and all the tourists at the resort are European.
However, we cannot conclude that ALL Europeans dislike hiking as there is no information provided about this. Therefore, we cannot assume that this statement is incorrect on the basis of this information we do not have. To conclude that this statement does not follow, we would be making an assumption that all Europeans must have the same likes and dislikes as this sample at the resort.
At the end of the day, this is one part of one question in a test which has quite a few questions.
All the best with your UCAT prep.

You're making the assumption that there exists Europeans other than the ones at the resort. Pearson defines some as a percentage that is more than 0% but less than 100%, so we cannot conclude that only SOME Europeans don't like hiking when it could in fact be ALL of them - all Europeans in the world are presently at the resort. The inconsistency is frustrating.

 

[9_Inch_Potato]

Is saying that notes could be coins taking the idea of ‘don’t bring external knowledge’ too far? My friend argues that A is better because we don’t know that coins and notes are mutually exclusive but I disagree

 

[polo16]

You're making the assumption that there exists Europeans other than the ones at the resort. Pearson defines some as a percentage that is more than 0% but less than 100%, so we cannot conclude that only SOME Europeans don't like hiking when it could in fact be ALL of them - all Europeans in the world are presently at the resort. The inconsistency is frustrating.

Yup exactly what I was thinking. It really is quite frustrating as we don't know where the line to draw is for outside knowledge. So for these types of questions, is it safe for me to assume that I should just follow what the UCAT consortium has said?

 

[cocodreams]

Hi,
In this case, I am not having trouble with the actual question, but want to clarify how "only male veterans attended this event" can be interpreted as?
There's two ways I interpreted it in:
1. The only people present at the event were male veterans
OR
2. Out of all the veterans, only males were present
View attachment 4641
Thanks!

 

[whys]

Hi,
In this case, I am not having trouble with the actual question, but want to clarify how "only male veterans attended this event" can be interpreted as?
There's two ways I interpreted it in:
1. The only people present at the event were male veterans
OR
2. Out of all the veterans, only males were present
View attachment 4641
Thanks!

The first one. Where it says ‘attended this event’, it is referring to who is present at the event. Thus, the statement is stating that male veterans were the only people at the event (i.e. there is no one apart from male veterans at the event).

 

[cocodreams]

The first one. Where it says ‘attended this event’, it is referring to who is present at the event. Thus, the statement is stating that male veterans were the only people at the event (i.e. there is no one apart from male veterans at the event).

Yes, "attended this event" is a good point! Thanks

 

[cocodreams]

Hi
For the question highlighted in yellow, I interpreted it as "any bogle cannot sing or it can sing" but it does not necessarily have to be a bird for it to be unable to sing. Is that correct? Is there a better way to interpret and answer this question? (the answer is No btw)

 

[fm8]

Hey! please someone tell me I'm right and their wrong lol, based on Pearson definitions

 

[cocodreams]

Hey! please someone tell me I'm right and their wrong lol, based on Pearson definitions

View attachment 4647

Hey! I get where you're coming from. To confirm, is this a venn diagram or something similar you worked using? Using this, you can say that a poisonous fungus that is red, has white gills and spots has to be A.Muscaria, but NOT ALL A.Muscaria's neccessarily have to be red etc. I believe there isn't enough information, so all the answers would be 'No'? If anyone else disagrees or agrees, please let us know, because this is a bit weird lol

 

[Scrivo_72]

Hey! I get where you're coming from. To confirm, is this a venn diagram or something similar you worked using? Using this, you can say that a poisonous fungus that is red, has white gills and spots has to be A.Muscaria, but NOT ALL A.Muscaria's neccessarily have to be red etc. I believe there isn't enough information, so all the answers would be 'No'? If anyone else disagrees or agrees, please let us know, because this is a bit weird lol
View attachment 4649

i think the assumption has been made that the features of a specific species do not vary amongst the animals of that species. For example, say a Great White Shark feature is having really sharp teeth, then a shark that doesn't have sharp teeth must not be classified as a Great White Shark. This is the case in this question where it says that if the poisonous fungus has the three characteristics, it is classified as an Aminita m... So an animal that doesn't have these characteristics can't be classified as an Aminita m..

However, with that said i would have still said no as one can't bring info from outside the question into the question. Its a strange question in that aspect.

(wording edited slightly by moderator)

 

[JeydinNewWon]

Hey! please someone tell me I'm right and their wrong lol, based on Pearson definitions

View attachment 4647

1st statement is a 'NO'. Whilst the condition means that 'All PF with Red, WG and WS' are AMs; it doesn't mean that those that don't fit all 3 conditions can't be a AM.

2nd statement is a 'NO'. There could be some AMs that don't fulfil all the conditions as statement in #1. There is no info from the premise that says ONLY PFs with Red, WG and WS are AMs.

3rd statement is a 'NO'. This just straight up doesn't make sense and I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain anything there

4th statement is a 'NO'. The premise doesn't imply that PFs without all 3 characteristics can't be AM.

5h statement is a 'NO'. We don't know anything about stuff that isn't AM.

So yes, I agree with your statements! I'm pretty sure the question is wrong.

 

[fm8]

1st statement is a 'NO'. Whilst the condition means that 'All PF with Red, WG and WS' are AMs; it doesn't mean that those that don't fit all 3 conditions can't be a AM.

2nd statement is a 'NO'. There could be some AMs that don't fulfil all the conditions as statement in #1. There is no info from the premise that says ONLY PFs with Red, WG and WS are AMs.

3rd statement is a 'NO'. This just straight up doesn't make sense and I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain anything there

4th statement is a 'NO'. The premise doesn't imply that PFs without all 3 characteristics can't be AM.

5h statement is a 'NO'. We don't know anything about stuff that isn't AM.

So yes, I agree with your statements! I'm pretty sure the question is wrong.

great thank you!!!

 

[JeydinNewWon]

Hi
For the question highlighted in yellow, I interpreted it as "any bogle cannot sing or it can sing" but it does not necessarily have to be a bird for it to be unable to sing. Is that correct? Is there a better way to interpret and answer this question? (the answer is No btw)
View attachment 4643

Yes, your reasoning would be correct. Don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

 

[cocodreams]

Hi, going off Pearson's official definition of "some", I want to confirm that:

If SOME children like basketball, it means that some children DO NOT like basketball?

 

[JeydinNewWon]

Hi, going off Pearson's official definition of "some", I want to confirm that:

If SOME children like basketball, it means that some children DO NOT like basketball?

Yes.

 

[cocodreams]

If we are placing the numbers for e.g. '7' between bags and toys, then shouldn't the stem/statement say '7 children have bags and toys ONLY' because '7 children have bags and toys' implies that it includes the 'all 3 section'?

 

[jinjja21]

Are the syllogism yes/no questions weighed more in DM?

 

[ucatboy]

Are the syllogism yes/no questions weighed more in DM?

What do YOU think?

 

[claudiaf578]

Are the syllogism yes/no questions weighed more in DM?

Yes - syllogism yes/no questions are each worth 2 marks.