The pictures say it all and, ladies, I think you know what I’m talking about.
It shouldn’t matter that the woman with whom Jesse James is cheating is disgusting. I know that the main issue should be the betrayal of the marital state. But the fact that Michelle McGee is the grossest creature ever to crawl out of a slime pit and into the boudoir makes the adultery so much worse.
And I think the LSAT can tell us why.
See, Jesse James marries all-American girl next door Sandra Bullock who does things like star in wholesome movies about football players and Miss America pageants. I mean, her first name is “Sandra” for crying out loud.
So we assume because James is married to Sandra Bullock that he’s attracted to a certain class of women, and that the next woman he’s with will be somewhat similar. Think of Pamela Anderson moving from Tommy Lee to Kid Rock. There’s no surprise there. She’s kept it clearly in the scumbag rocker with large equipment spectrum. Even Brad Pitt moving from Jennifer Aniston to Angelina Jolie is within the range of normal—they’re both movie stars and gorgeous. If one is vanilla ice cream and the other is triple fudge chunk, they’re at least both desserts.
But Michelle McGee, with her face tattoos, coffin bedroom, and polyester red thongs demonstrates this fallacy. Forcibly.
Just because James went for girl next door in his marriage, that doesn’t mean we can conclude anything from this limited sample about his future choices. Our believing he will is a sampling fallacy, which if you haven’t seen it yet is covered in detail in Blueprint Lesson 6. And if you’re not a Blueprinter, just make sure any sample cited as evidence on the LSAT actually supports the conclusion and that the people surveyed have no reason to respond in a biased manner. If either of these conditions isn’t met, it’s a sampling fallacy.
Understanding our twisted reactions to Hollywood adultery: just another good reason to study for the LSAT.
Article by Jodi Triplett of Blueprint LSAT Preparation