A certain airport security scanner designed to detect explosives in luggage will alert the scanner’s operator whenever the piece of luggage passing under the scanner contains an explosive. The scanner will erroneously alert the operator for only one percent of the pieces of luggage that contain no explosives. Thus in ninety‑nine out of a hundred alerts explosives will actually be present.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) ignores the possibility of the scanner’s failing to signal analert when the luggage does contain an explosive - WRONG. There is no discussion about not alerting but only about false alert and that too when explosive is no there.
(B) draws a general conclusion about reliability on the basis of a sample that is likely to bebiased - WRONG. There is no bias as such but a conclusion based on some fact.
(C) ignores the possibility of human error on the part of the scanner’soperator once the scanner has alerted him or her - WRONG.
...
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) ignores the possibility of the scanner’s failing to signal analert when the luggage does contain an explosive - WRONG. There is no discussion about not alerting but only about false alert and that too when explosive is no there.
(B) draws a general conclusion about reliability on the basis of a sample that is likely to bebiased - WRONG. There is no bias as such but a conclusion based on some fact.
(C) ignores the possibility of human error on the part of the scanner’soperator once the scanner has alerted him or her - WRONG.
...
Statistics : Posted by unraveled • on 03 Jul 2018, 10:15 • Replies 4 • Views 4892
.jpg)
