Fierce Blogic

The Boringest Post in the World

Sep 23rd, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

Here’re some lists to get you ready for test day on Saturday.

Things to bring with you to the test center:

Admission Ticket

Driver’s License

12 extremely sharp pencils

Wallet

Keys

20-oz bottle of water

Flask of single-malt scotch (for later)

Tylenol

Tissue

One banana

One granola bar (for sustenance during the break)

Medical or hygiene products

Loose-fitting pants

Sensible shoes

Jacket (without a hood)

Things to leave in your car:

Mobile phone

Weapons

Flask of single-malt scotch

Notebook containing plans for global domination

Things you cannot bring into the test center:

Digital timers of any kind

Mechanical pencils

Earplugs

Electronic devices

Porn

Cheesesteaks

Hooded jackets

Your mother

Things to eat for breakfast:

14 oz Steel cut Irish Oatmeal

12 oz Pot Still Irish Whiskey

One Pound Bacon

One half-pound salted butter

One slab bittersweet chocolate

The still-beating hearts of your enemies

Things to do after the test:

Drink flask of single malt Scotch

Meet me at Steelhead Brewery in Irvine at 4 PM. First round’s on me (really).

There are now 72 hours till go-time.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Irish whiskey · mechanical pencils · oatmeal

120 Hours Till Go-Time

Sep 21st, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

And now, the answer to Friday’s Challenge.

The Challenge and answer choices follow:

Last Logical Citizen of the United States: We all understand that Joe Wilson was rude to the President when he called him a liar during his address to the Congress, but the larger question still remains: Why did Rep. Wilson call the President a liar?

Mainstream Media Outlets (breathless, and sort of sweaty): Hey, hey, you guys! Did you hear that? Joe Wilson just shouted “you lie” at the President! It was awesome, cause it was right after a section on returning to a more civil discourse, and then Wilson was all, like, bam! “you lie” and the President was all like “that isn’t true,” and Nancy Pelosi was looking all kind of –

LLCotUS: Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard. From you, actually. All day long every day for the last week. My question is, can you tell me whether or not our President was lying, or misstating the truth in some way, when he said that the proposal he endorsed would not extend free coverage to illegal immigrants to this country?

MMO (still breathless, and jumping up and down a little bit): Oooh! Guys! Check this out! The House of Representatives has voted to censure Joe Wilson! Seriously! The House was all like “boo-yah, Rep. Wilson of South Carolina!” It was great! Hold on – we’ve got more info – it looks like it’s not a censure, it’s just a reprimand, which means, it looks like, like it doesn’t really mean as much as a censure… Wait a second and we’ll tell you some more about what it means (we bet it’s awesome)… Hold on…

LLCotUS: I give up.

The Mainstream Media Outlets’ response to the Last Logical Citizen of the United States committed which of the following errors?

First, let’s answer the question. What did the MMO do in response to the queries of the LLCotUS? Well, pretty much nothing, right? They seemed to have ignored her questions altogether, instead just blathering on about things that did not relate to the question of why Rep. Wilson called the President a liar. Now, let’s find an answer choice that says that:

(A) Failed to address a key component of her argument.

Yes. This is the correct answer; it matches what we’ve already articulated as one of the major themes of the MMO’s response: Namely, the failure to address the LLCotUS’ argument – that there is a larger question at issue – at all.

(B) Erroneously assumed that because a condition necessary to bring about a certain result obtained, that the result must then obtain.

What necessary condition? This answer is from some different universe.

(C) Neglected to consider whether a censure differs in any other respects than those mentioned from a reprimand.

True, the MMO neglected this, but doing so was not an error of reasoning. It doesn’t matter to anyone whether there are or are not other differences between censure and reprimand. Either way, there would be no effect on the issue of the “larger question” of why Wilson made his war cry.

(D) Made a generalization from a sample that was unlikely to be representative.

What generalization? What sample?

(E) Inferred that because an event of one type preceded an event of another type, that events of the two types must invariably be related.

Again, as with (B) and (D), this is an outer space response. The MMO made no mention of any relation of events, much less did they indicate any invariable tie between any two events.

Have a great week, and get lots of rest and eat nutritious meals and for god’s sake put the bottle down for a minute, would you?

T minus 120 hours till launch!

We’ll talk again on Wednesday.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Barack Obama · Friday Challenge · Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson. Yep, We’re Going There.

Sep 18th, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

Good Lord. It’s starting to feel really lonely in this country for a lover of logic and a believer in reason. Especially lonely given how high my hopes were that our ultra-intelligent, coolly confident, hyper-articulate new President could raise the level of discourse in this misbegotten “union” of ours.

But, oh dear god, no. The leering, sweaty, rotund mouth-breathers (I’m talking about you, Rush Limbaugh, and also you, Glenn Beck, and you, Sean Hannity, and where do you think you’re going, Lou Dobbs?) on the extreme and irrational right are determined to return us to our “roots”. And by “roots”, they are evidently referring to going all the way back to just after we came down from the trees but just a little before we’d discovered fire, or language, or reason.

Last week, protesters were directed to march on Capitol Hill, and they did, bearing really clever signs that portrayed the president wearing a small mustache, or that bore slogans like “Diversity is a Disease,” and “Keep Your Laws off My Body” (which, when unironically lofted by an extreme conservative, induces a particularly dizzying cognitive dissonance). The reasons for the march were unclear, nor was clarity really called for – these people were really, really angry about… something, and they wanted us to know it. About how mad they were. At stuff.

But that’s not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about was South Carolina’s finest. No, not General-Governor Mark Sanford. Of course, I’m talking about Representative to the United States Congress Joe Wilson (R). Now, I don’t hate him because he’s rude. I hate him because in 2000, he cast a vote to keep the Confederate Flag flying over the South Carolina statehouse. Maybe it’s just me (and honestly, some days it feels like it is), but I, like, totally wouldn’t vote to reelect a racist as my Congressional representative. But, you know, potayto, potahto, I guess.

But that’s not really what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about was Fox News, and CNN, and MSNBC, and ABC, NBC, CBS, (although, oddly enough, today not VH-1). Because here’s my deal – I don’t really care that Joe Wilson shouted out “You lie” during the President’s address. He’s a jackass and he looked like a jackass, and let’s please stop talking about Joe “Jackass” Wilson and please, please reform healthcare so that 45,000 citizens of the richest country in the world don’t keep dying every year because they can’t afford to go to the doctor.

Here’s what I want to know – who’s right? Joe “Jackass” Wilson, or Barack “Leader of the Free World” Obama? And, yes, I’m assuming that it’s Obama (again, maybe just me, but in a he-said, he-said between a South Carolina racist and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, I’m going to go with that second guy), but the thing is, being, like, a lover of logic and stuff, I do not want to just assume that Mr. Obama is right. I want to know whether or not he is. But I dare you to find out by looking to any of the mainstream media outlets. You’ll get lots and lots of coverage on the whole affair, but nothing about what the bill actually says, and whether or not our President did lie to us.

So, for our Friday Challenge, I have channeled that frustration into the following dialogue, followed by the usual Friday set of answer choices. As always, the right answer (and a discussion of the wrong answer choices) comes your way on Monday.

LLCotUS: I give up.

The Mainstream Media Outlets’ response to the Last Logical Citizen of the United States did which of the following?

(A) Failed to address a key component of her argument.

(B) Erroneously assumed that because a condition necessary to bring about a certain result obtained, that the result must then obtain.

(C) Neglected to consider whether a censure differs in any other respects than those mentioned from a reprimand.

(D) Made a generalization from a sample that was unlikely to be representative.

(E) Inferred that because an event of one type preceded an event of another type, that events of the two types must invariably be related.

Have fun!

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Barack Obama · Friday Challenge · Joe Wilson · racism

That Pesky Writing Sample (Again)

Sep 16th, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

So we were at Cal State Dominguez Hills not so long ago (because that’s how we roll), along with Dean Pyle of Southwestern Law, and the subject came around, as it so often does at these things, to the subject of the LSAT Writing Sample.

It’s the sixth section of the test, it’s always administered at the end of the day (when your brain is mostly mush and all you really need to do is go to the nearest bar and order an Irish car bomb, stat), and it isn’t scored by LSAC.

Thing is, you’ve got thirty-five minutes, you’ve got nothing better to do, and it may be important to the admissions committee at the law school you really, really want to go to.

We say “may be” because we’ve heard conflicting reports. Several admissions officers have told us (on background) that the LSAT writing sample isn’t that important in the great majority of cases. These sources say (reasonably, in our opinion), that (1) Because their staffs haven’t been trained to assess this sample, they don’t expect them to try, that (2) They’ve got a writing sample (the Statement of Purpose, or Personal Statement) that they do consider important, and that (3) Their admissions committees will sometimes look at the LSAT Writing Sample, but mainly to get a sense of whether the applicant in question is really capable of the brilliance on evidence in the SOP. For these reasons, many admissions officers have downplayed the role of the writing sample – you are to take it seriously, but not to stress overmuch.

On the other hand, we have heard from a small number of admissions officers (and Dean Pyle is one of those), who have indicated that the LSAT Writing Sample is very important to the admission decision. These few sources say (again, very reasonably, in our opinion), that (1) The excellence of an applicant’s SOP has been crafted over weeks or months, and really says more about the applicant as an editor than as a writer, and that (2) The one thing we all know for sure is that the applicant wrote the LSAT Writing Sample, and that she did so under timed conditions, so that (3) The LSAT Writing Sample is maybe the best predictor of a prospective student’s success in law school (which is, like, totally aboutwriting cogently under time pressure). For these reasons, some admissions officers have stressed the importance of the LSAT Writing Sample.

We believe in taking people at their word. When a majority of law schools are saying to us that they don’t really care about the writing sample, our thinking is, “Hey, don’t sweat it; just do your best” (Also, we think you should always do your best no matter what it is that you’re doing). But when a few schools begin to say that they think the thing is important, we tend to reevaluate our stance. Since we’re getting conflicting information, we’re playing it safe; we advise that you take real care with your LSAT Writing Sample. Don’t get all overwrought about it, but do think about how you’ll approach it, and make sure that you give it your best effort on test day.

Here are some tips:

It’s always the same format: Some person (or group) has a decision to make, and must take two factors into consideration in making that decision. One option will better fulfill one of the factors, and the other option will better fulfill the other factor. Your assignment is to make an argument in favor of one course of action over the other.
We use (but are not constrained by!) this 5-paragraph formula, as follows:
1) Introduction;
2) Why your chosen option is better than the other option;
3) Why the supposed benefit of the other option isn’t as important as the benefit of your choice;
4) Other considerations favoring your option;
5) Conclusion
We eschew phrases such as “I think…” in favor of phrases such as “It is therefore clear….”
There is no right or wrong answer, and it doesn’t matter what you really think, deep down inside your heart. Choose the option for which you can most readily make the strongest argument.
Now, go have that Irish Car Bomb.

Finally, just in case you’re interested, here’s the LSAT Writing Sample that our own Dave Hall wrote on the June 2008 test (notice how badly his handwriting deteriorates near the end, as he begins to think more earnestly about his own Irish Car Bomb):

Radar Love 1 Radar Love 2

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.

Aloysius the Organized.

Aug 31st, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

Without further ado, then, here is a pictorial answer key for Friday’s Challenge (followed by step-by-step instructions for the game):

Aloysius

First, notice that I took inventory of my elements, using initials for signifiers. I needed a way to deal with the whole puce/teal/vermilion thing, so I’ve used shapes that I can place into my diagram as placeholders (as we’ll see).

Next, I’ve created an organizational system for dealing with my elements. This game has asked me to put things into order, so I’ve started with an Excel sheet of sorts.

After my diagram, I’ve symbolized the abstract rules in a visual, concrete way on the bottom left of the page. Rules 6 and 7 went right into my diagram, and for Rule 8, if no two consecutive folders can be the same color, then the second folder must be whatever color the first one is not.

Note that I’ve also combined the first five rules in a visually stunning masterpiece of rulery. Well, I can see the relationships between the elements more clearly now, anyway. Notice that the files on gardening and Zeno are the only two files that do not have to have anything closer to the back than they are; one of these two files, then, must be the in the ninth folder.

Now, let’s answer the questions.

#1. (A) is out because it violates the first rule; in this choice, Manson is closer to the front than Jack.

(B) is our answer because it doesn’t violate any rules.

(D) is bad because of Rule 5 – in this choice, Zeno is closer to the front than Feng Shui.

(E) is out because it breaks Rule 3; here we have gardening closer to the front than herpetology.

#2. Answer choice (C) must be true – Wittgenstein is closer to the front than Xerxes, which is closer to the front than Oswald, which is closer to the front than gardening. Et voila!

#3. If the first folder is vermilion, the second one has to be teal – it cannot be another consecutive vermilion, nor can it be puce, consecutive to the puce folder 3 (according to rule 8). Answer choice (A) is correct – not only could the second folder be teal, it in fact must be teal. Sweet.

#4. The fifth file cannot contain the file on Oswald; that file must be closer to the back than Jack, Manson, Wittgenstein, Feng Shui, and Xerxes. With 5 files closer to the front, Oswald can be no earlier than 6^th. Notice how I checked off the first four answer choices; they could all be true.

#5. The only effect of moving the gardening file into 8^th place is that it tells us that Zeno must be the last file of the bunch – every file except for Zeno must be closer to the front than gardening, so this is true by simple process of elimination. Ergo, (C) is our answer – the file on Oswald (and every other file in Aloysius’ collection) must be closer to the front than the one on Zeno.

#6. Jack cannot be 6^th – there are too many files that must be after his. Gardening cannot be 6^th because there are too many files that must be ahead of it. Feng Shui, like Jack, has too many files after it to be sixth, and Xerxes has four files closer to the front, which leaves only (D).

Fun stuff, isn’t it?

I’m going on hiatus for the Labor Day weekend, so I won’t be back until Wednesday, September 9^th. Have a good week this week and a fantastic Labor Day Weekend.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Aloysius · Games

It’s Gamey, Gamey Games Day

Aug 28th, 2009

by Dave.

4 comments

For this week’s Friday Challenge, as promised, your game (answers will follow on Monday as usual):

Aloysius is arranging his filing cabinet. He keeps files on the following nine subjects: Feng Shui, gardening, herpetology. Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Xerxes, and Zeno. Each of the nine files is hung in a separate folder numbered 1 through 9 from the front of the cabinet to the back, and each folder is exactly one of three colors: puce, vermilion, or teal. Aloysius will arrange his files according to the following constraints:

The file on Charles Manson will be closer to the front than that on Xerxes, but closer to the back than the file on Jack the Ripper.

The file on Xerxes will be closer to the back of the cabinet than both the file on Feng Shui and that on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The file on gardening will be closer to the back of the cabinet than both the file on herpetology and that on Lee Harvey Oswald.

The file on Xerxes will be hung closer to the front than the file on Lee Harvey Oswald.

The file on Zeno will be hung closer to the back than the file on Feng Shui.

The third folder is puce.

The first folder is not puce.

No two consecutive folders are of the same color.

Which of the following is a complete and accurate list of Aloysius’ files, in order from the front of the cabinet to the back?

(A) Charles Manson, Feng Shui, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zeno, Jack the Ripper, Xerxes, herpetology, Lee Harvey Oswald, gardening.

(B) Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Feng Shui, Xerxes, herpetology, Lee Harvey Oswald, gardening, Zeno.

(C) Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Feng Shui, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zeno, Lee Harvey Oswald, Xerxes, herpetology, gardening.

(D) Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Zeno, Feng Shui, Xerxes, herpetology, Lee Harvey Oswald, gardening.

(E) Feng Shui, Jack the Ripper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Charles Manson, Zeno, Xerxes, Lee Harvey Oswald, gardening, herpetology.

2. Which one of the following must be true?

(A) The file on Feng Shui is hung closer to the front of the cabinet than the file on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

(B) The file on Xerxes is in a puce folder.

(D) The fourth folder is vermilion.

(E) The first folder contains the file on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

3. If the first folder is vermilion, which of the following could be true?

(A) The second folder is teal.

(B) The second folder is puce.

(D) The fourth folder is puce.

(E) The fifth and sixth folders are both teal.

4. Which of the following files CANNOT be in the fifth folder?

(A) Charles Manson

(B) Herpetology

(D) Lee Harvey Oswald

(E) Feng Shui

5. If the file on gardening is in the eighth folder, which of the following must be true?

(A) The file on Feng Shui is hung closer to the front than the file on Charles Manson.

(B) The file on Xerxes is not in the third folder.

(D) The file on Jack the Ripper is in a puce folder.

(E) The eighth folder is vermilion.

6. Which of the following could be true of the order in which the files are hung in the cabinet?

(A) The file on Jack the Ripper is in the sixth folder.

(B) The file on gardening is in the sixth folder.

(D) The file on herpetology is in the first folder.

(E) The file on Xerxes is in the first folder.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Aloysius · Games

Preamble to Game Theory

Aug 26th, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

Years later, though he honestly tried, he could not remember which files had belonged to which folders.

He was a dilettante. He had files for Feng Shui, advanced Gardening, Herpetology. He kept files on famous killers: Jack the Ripper, and Charles Manson and Lee Harvey Oswald. He dabbled in philosophy, and had dozens of files on Wittgenstein, Xerxes, and Zeno (of these last, he was most proud).

Memory told him that he had used a color-coding system; files were puce, some were vermilion, others teal. But he could not remember, of the nine folders, which had contained which files. And the colors! What went where?

What he needed, he told himself, was an organizational system. His memory could not be trusted. What he needed was to force himself to be more organized, more systematic, more fearless in his approach.

But he had waited too long. He was feeble now and alone, surrounded by seven-foot stacks of unsorted files, silently mocking monuments to his ineptitude, and the many skinny cats and their smells weaving between folders, waiting to be fed.

And there we leave him.

One wonders if he ever knew that his last and best purpose was as a parable, a cautionary tale. One wonders if that would have meant anything to him in his dusty room with the animals circling.

At the least, dear friend, we owe it to him to follow the advice that he himself could not; we must be organized, we must be systematic, we must be fearless in our approach.

On Friday, we’ll look at a logic game for our weekly Challenge. Until then, remember that logic keeps the cats away.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.

Uh, I’m Sorry, Sir, but That Heroin is Only for the Addicts.

Aug 24th, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

For Friday’s Challenge, I left you with the following argument about heroin (the drug of choice in train stations across Europe and in America’s finest alleys):

WSJ(oD): [A recent] study, by Canadian researchers, found that injections of prescription heroin were more effective in treating longtime addicts than methadone, the most widely used treatment. Compared with addicts in the study who got methadone, those who received heroin were more likely to stay in treatment.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the WSJ’s conclusion depends?

As always, let’s begin by answering the question we’ve been asked. The argument claims that prescription heroin is a more effective treatment than methadone is. Why? As evidence, we’re told that people who got the H were more likely to stay in treatment (where they could, one presumes, continue to ride the horse) than were people who got methadone (boo).

This question has asked us to identify the extra information needed by this argument to get from Point A (the evidence) to Point B (the main claim of the argument). And here’s the thing: staying in treatment longer doesn’t necessarily mean being treated more effectively. That would be a little like saying that the best players in the NBA are those who play the fewest minutes, because players with the fewest minutes stay in the league longer.

One thing just doesn’t have anything to do with the other, necessarily. To build an argument about effectiveness of treatment based on duration of stay in treatment is to assume that the duration of a patient’s stay in treatment has some kind of effect on the efficacy of the treatment that patient receives. That’s what the arguer above has assumed, so that’s our answer; now let’s find a choice that says that:

(A) Heroin addiction patients’ length of stay in treatment programs at least sometimes has an effect on the success of their treatment.

Uh, yeah. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? This is the whole point of the whole thing – answer the question first, so that the right answer just looks right. Like magic, except you earned it.

(B) Methadone is ineffective as a treatment for heroin addiction.

Maybe this is true, maybe it isn’t, but we don’t have to know that methadone is ineffective in order to claim that heroin is more effective. Methadone, for example, could be 75% effective; as long as prescription heroin is at least 75.1% effective, the conclusion of the argument could still stand. We don’t have to have this information, so this isn’t our answer.

(C) There are no treatment options available that are more effective for treating heroin addicts than injections of prescription heroin.

This answer fails for the same reason that (B) did; we don’t need to know that heroin is the most effective of all treatments in order to demonstrate that it is more effective than methadone. Could be the case that repeated kicks to the groin are the most effective of all treatments (at 82%), followed by heroin at 75.1% and methadone in the rear at 75%. See?

(D) Some drugs are more addictive than is heroin.

Sure. And who the hell cares? We don’t need to know anything about the relative addictiveness of heroin in order to prove that prescription heroin is a more effective treatment than methadone.

(E) Heroin users will not consent to treatment that doesn’t include injections of prescription heroin.

If this were true, it would probably help the case (I’m assuming here that patient consent is an important part of the efficacy of treatment), but we don’t have to know that this is true in order to make our claim. It’s entirely possible that users would consent to methadone treatment but that that treatment is still less effective than prescription heroin. The question asked us for an assumption that the argument depended on – the argument above does not depend on knowing that heroin is the only treatment to which users will consent. Capiche?

Now, get out of my lab. I’ve still got some potion to get to work on. I’ll see you on Wednesday, when we’ll continue our admiration for logic applied in an ass-kicking fashion.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: assumptions · Canada · heroin · NBA

Hopping Nimbly Off The White Horse.

Aug 21st, 2009

by Dave.

2 comments

Well, it’s Friday, which means another grueling session in the lab, perfecting my “Essence of Fake Dave Hall.” It still has a way to go, but when it’s complete, we’ll all be able to exhibit magical floaty auras in space (For a fee, of course. This thing is my ticket to board the gravy train. Once it’s finally finished, I’ll be outta here).

But, like I said, it’s still got some work. In the meantime, I present you with this week’s Friday Challenge:

Since it is officially “Illicit Drug Week,” we will pick up where we left off in our formal examination of the logical flaws involved in some of the week’s drug news by examining the following argument about heroin (which drug we’ve now declared officially to be “illicit drug of the week,” narrowly beating back a late charge from China White and a surprisingly vigorous entry from qualuudes). This argument comes from the opening sentences of an article originally appearing in the Wall Street Journal (of Drugs):

whitehorse

Which of the following is an assumption on which the WSJ’s conclusion depends?

(A) Heroin addiction patients’ length of stay in treatment programs at least sometimes has an effect on the success of their treatment.

(B) Methadone is ineffective as a treatment for heroin addiction.

(C) There are no treatment options available that are more effective for treating heroin addicts than injections of prescription heroin.

(D) Some drugs are more addictive than is heroin.

(E) Heroin users will not consent to treatment that doesn’t include injections of prescription heroin.

Have fun working this out, and let me know what you think. As always, I’ll post the answer and an assessment of the bad answer choices on Monday. Have a lovely weekend.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: assumptions · Fake Dave Hall · heroin

It’s Like the Eighties, but With Better Hair

Aug 19th, 2009

by Dave.

2 comments

On Monday of this week, a headline from the Huffington Post proclaimed that “Up To 90 Percent Of U.S. Paper Money Contains Traces Of Cocaine!” The article that came attached to this headline was so rife with logical errors that, instead of giving you a posting, per se, I’m just going to give you a numbered list. You might want to roll up that hundy; we’re going to be here for a while and I’ll need your attention the entire time. I’m going to work through the article in chronological order, without any special emphasis on any particular flaw. It’s going to be fun!

What? This is baby powder. Sheesh.

Paragraph 1. The Part-to-Whole Flaw. The article leads with the proclamation that “You probably have cocaine in your wallet, purse, or pocket,” (and of course we do, but how did they know that?) because, the lede goes on to explain, researchers found traces of cocaine on up to 90% of the paper money tested in big cities such as Detroit and Baltimore, with an even higher rate in Washington DC. But the Huffington Post is read by people outside of those cities, right? So to conclude that the reader of the story is likely to be carrying around cocaine just because a lot of money in some big cities has cocaine on it is to assume that everyone in the world (or at least anyone reading the Huffington Post) lives in a place that is like those few cities. It is to assume that what applies to those parts of the globe applies to the whole globe as well. And that assumption may not be accurate. There may be less cocaine on the bills circulating in Oconee County, GA than on those making their way through Baltimore.
Paragraph 2. The Causal Flaw. The article claims that the new study suggests that “cocaine abuse is still widespread and may be on the rise in some areas.” Flim-flam! The presence of cocaine on any surface (while it might indicate proximity to the kind of rocking party we actively discourage you from participating in) does not establish in any way what the cause of that presence is. It might be true that the existence of cocaine on large quantities of bills is due to a rise in the proportion of cocaine-snorters, but then again, it might be that it’s simply due to simple economic factors. Maybe, for instance, the current recession is leading to more cash transactions, as people make smaller purchases with less credit than they had in the fat years. Perhaps that increased traffic in bills means that more bills come in contact with one another than did before, and maybe that increased contact between bills is responsible for any rise in cocaine residue on our currency. In other words, maybe it’s just that more bills are touching cocaine-bearing bills, and are thus becoming cocaine-y by proximity. Or maybe not. Either way, we can’t make any claims about the cause of the effect based only on the existence of the effect.
Paragraph 5. The Statistical Error. The article indicates that “the current study represents nearly a 20 percent jump in comparison to a similar study… conducted two years ago [which showed] that 67 percent of bills in the U.S. contained traces of cocaine.” What!? The rate quoted in paragraph 3 was 85-90%. 85 percent is not a “nearly 20% jump” from 67 percent – it’s a nearly 30% increase. Think of it this way – if you have 67 out of every hundred bills contaminated, and then you found later that 85 of a hundred where all coked up, you would have added 18 new bills. That’s 18% of all bills, but those 18 additional tainted bills represent a 27% increase in the cocaine bill population (because 18 is 26.86% of 67). To talk about an increase in percentage without clearly linking it to the population in question is to play fast and loose with the numbers, and that’s a flaw in reasoning.
Paragraph 10. The Sampling Error. Oh, dear god. It isn’t until paragraph 10 that the article indicates the source of this “up to 90%” claim. 234 bills. 234 measly bills were all the researchers tested in the entire country. There are roughly 20 million notes in circulation in the United States, and these guys tested 234 of them. It’s not the size of the sample, per se, that’s troubling; it’s the fact that such a small sample population (about one one-thousandth of one percent) could so easily be non-representative of the population at large. And again, just to be clear – it’s not the size that matters. One bill could give us accurate data about all bills, if we knew that the one bill was representative of all bills. But we are not told that these 234 bills represent the larger spectrum of US currency with any degree of accuracy. As presented, the article simply assumes that they do. And, you know, one one-thousandth of a percent might not accurately represent the bigger picture. Sigh.

I’m going to quit here, even though the article goes on for another few paragraphs. I just don’t have the will anymore. But you should! What errors did I leave out? Let me know. And stop sniffing your wallet. It’s unseemly.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: cause · cocaine · flaws · Part to Whole · Sampling · Statistics

Fierce Blogic

The Boringest Post in the World

120 Hours Till Go-Time

Joe Wilson. Yep, We’re Going There.

That Pesky Writing Sample (Again)

Aloysius the Organized.

It’s Gamey, Gamey Games Day

Preamble to Game Theory

Uh, I’m Sorry, Sir, but That Heroin is Only for the Addicts.

Hopping Nimbly Off The White Horse.

It’s Like the Eighties, but With Better Hair

Search

Links

Archives

September 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Oct
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

Search

Links

Tags

Archives