Ur_Sky
Just gettin' started!
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 13
Thanks given: 3
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
Location: Peru
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi,
I see it like this:
Part 1.- From the beginning of the argument you can state that people in general tend to strongly believe that an event X will happen to them if they are in frequent contact with proofs of this event X happening.
Part 2.- As a supporting idea you read that not only more lotteries have been stablished, but also the advertising of lottery winners has increased. Why could this be taken as a supporting idea?. Because if people need to see lots of proofs of an event that they would like to believe in (in this case to be a lottery winner), it is logical to asume that it would be a good idea to publish a picture of the winners on every media that you can in order to atract more consumers.
With this first info, we go to the choices:
1.- This idea could be part of the argument, but not the conclusion. Remember that the main point we are talking about is the peopleīs judgements, not what those who run lotteries want.
2.- Well, we donīt know. There is no information about this ratio in the original text.
3.- This is OK. Why?. Because it relates the two ideas stated in the text: people tend to judge that an event will happen to them if they see many proofs of this event happening, so I see lots of ads with lottery winners and I judge (and believe) that I will be one of them overestimating the real probabilities of winning (maybe one out of thousands).
4.- Irrelevant idea. We arenīt talking about taking right or wrong decisions.
5.-This seems to be a good answer. The problem is (like in choice 1), that it refers to the specific case of lottery businness, and remember that the main point is about peopleīs judgements in general. Lotteries are just an example to distract you.
Hope this could help 
|
|
