I recently spent a few days in Vegas. What I learned was that, while what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, what happens in Vegas will also cause you to score poorly on the LSAT. Sin City is also the City of LSAT flaws.
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 1: EXCLUSIVITY
While walking down the Strip, I was propositioned by a very nice, and I’m sure completely disease-free, lady of the night. When I politely declined her invitation to do something referred to as the ‘Chicago Slough,’ she questioned my sexual orientation.
No, Felicẻ, there are plenty of reasons I might decline your offer. Maybe I’m in a committed relationship. Maybe you’re just not my type. Maybe I don’t like paying for sex. Assuming that I’m either gay or want to sleep with you is severely limiting the possibilities, and you’ve just committed an exclusivity flaw.
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 2: SAMPLING
“We asked big rollers which casino they prefer, and they all said (insert our casino here),” they advertise.
“Where’d you ask them?” I ask them.
“…In our high-roller lounge,” they respond.
“So your sample is limited to those gamblers who are already choosing your casino as the best casino, and you *shockingly* get the answer that you want and know you’re going to get?” I smugly point out.
“…Here’s a coupon for a free shrimp cocktail!”
“I am mollified!” Then, I eat shrimp.
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 3: SUFFICIENT/NECESSARY
A lot of the casinos take the lotto slogan very seriously – “You can’t win it if you’re not in it.”
Which, as we all know, means that participating in the games of chance is a necessary condition to winning said games of chance.
And that’s certainly true.
However, they then go a step further to imply that those who are in it are, in fact, winning it. We know that being in a game of Blackjack isn’t nearly sufficient to win it (except for a few of you out there who will next time have a surefire method, for sure!). But they sure rake in the money by convincing the saps out there that the necessary condition to a huge payday is actually a sufficient condition.
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 4: TEMPORAL
I have a good friend. Let’s call him Angry Dave. I think we all can picture Angry Dave, because we all have a friend named Angry Something.
So I watch Angry Dave, a man with a very strong math background, analyze the roulette wheel for quite some time. I see him doing some calculations, A Beautiful Mind-style, in his head. Twenty minutes later, he drops $100 on the table and gets some chips. I’m ready for some excitement.
“$100 on Red!” he exclaims.
“Black,” they respond.
I asked him what that was all about, and he said red was due. No, Angry Dave, no it’s not. You’ve committed a temporal fallacy.
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 5: PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
This is kind of the entire reason Vegas exists, now, isn’t it?
VEGAS LSAT FLAW NO. 6: LOGICAL FORCE
While I first question the fact that half of the casinos (and a few of the brothels) advertise ‘Loosest Slots in Town!’, I also wonder what exactly ‘loosest’ means. Sure, it means at least as loose as everyone else (because if everyone’s tied for pay-outs, then everyone has the loosest slots), but that might not be very loose at all. ‘Loosest’ is comparative, and as such carries very little logical force. Yet they’re trying to sell me on it.