Monty Hall Problem in Ask Marilyn

Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God.

Donnelly begins his presentation with a thought experiment involving the tossing of a coin and predicts the possibility of a certain series of results. When predicting the possibility of heads, tails, heads (HTH) or heads, tails, tails (HTT), I, like most of the audience, believed that the chance of either possibility was equal. However, I did not take into account the possibility of overlap and how HTH was more like to be achieved in an overlap. I also did not catch that the HTH could appear in clumps because of the overlapping (the third "H" in HTH is also the first "H" in the next HTH). There was also the

y. Tessie was announced as a protagonist, by her cheerfulness in choosing someone for the lottery, but when she is chosen, wants to back out. Tessie is the least effective protagonist, due to her indecisiveness, lack of empathy, and denial. Tessie is indecisive of the lottery, because at one moment she is a supporter of it, and another she is fighting it. Tessie shows up late to the lottery and is happy and giggly until her husbands name is called and yells that it was “not fair.” Tessie demonstrates indecisiveness, by wanting to be involved in the lottery, but when her family gets picked she does not want to be a part of the lottery, because she thought it would not happen to her. Tessie throws her daughter under the bus, illustrating

The article, “Unnatural Selections” by Barry Schwartz is an inspirational article that shows us all of the default choices that we take for granted in this world. He uses several examples to help give you the overall impression of the article. Along with the examples, Barry creates logic and emotion by the writing style he uses. He creates logic and emotion in his article by using persuasive elements such as evidence and reasoning. Barry Schwartz is a highly known professor of psychology, and has written several books. Therefore, we can be convinced that we are able to trust him as an author. He makes valid points and he does a magnificent job of persuading the readers into believing what he says with his examples.

Gladwell employs this rhetoric appeal through the use anecdotes to further supplement his coherent argument. In addition to the Getty anecdote, Gladwell includes two other vital stories to not only entertain the audience, but to also demonstrate how instantaneous decisions can deem effective in several situations. He showcases a study performed by scientists at the University of Iowa which involves a very simple gambling game and a stress detector. In the game, there are four decks of cards (two blue decks and two red decks) and each card either earns you money or costs you money. The red cards are riskier than the blue, and the goal of the game is to maximize earnings.

The University of Rochester had revisited the marshmallow experiment with a different approach by having the kids first have an encounter with an adult, one reliable and another unreliable. For this had influenced the kids decision for waiting 15 minutes on the second marshmallow. In Source 2, it says “Only one of the 14 children in the unreliable condition held out for the full 15-minute wait.” and “More than half of the kids who had just had a reliable encounter, however, made it through the 15-minute wait.”. The difference from this experiment and the first one was the encounter with the adults and it had a huge effect the kids choice.

In Solomon E. Asch’s social pressure experiment, subjects were shown a line on a piece of paper and instructed to choose a line of the same length on a different piece of paper with two other lines of varying lengths. All but one of the subjects in each experiment group were instructed to choose the wrong answer on purpose, unbeknownst to the last member. The last member of the group, who did not know

“Unnatural Selections” In the article, “Unnatural Selections” by Barry Schwartz, he explains and proves with reasoning and evidence how individuals are influenced by whether a choice is a default or not. He persuades the readers by using three different methods, credibility, logic, and emotion. In this selection you will understand how he uses these devices.

When “The Lottery” was first published in 1948, it created an enormous controversy and great interest in its author, Shirley Jackson.

In the first experiment, she simply asked whether she could cut into the queue, 60 % said okay. Next Ellen asked whether she could cut into the queue

If they switch, they are not choosing a door again, but rather switching from the door they already choose. This scenario will happen ⅔ of the time the game is played, because ⅔ of the doors are

Introduction In “chapter 101” pages 62-65 Christopher explains the Monty Hall math problem. He says at the end of the chapter that the problem “shows that intuition can sometimes get things wrong. And intuition is what people use in life to make decisions. But logic can help you work out the right answer”.

The choice he makes of the two doors solely depending on a Semi-Barbaric princess. Whose train of thought might be different from that of a person who is sound of mind. Being of her background, she would easily have led the youth to the door of the beast. Her choice would reflect these three reasons her jealousy, upbringing and her pride.

My interest in the Monty Hall Problem was first sparked off when I came across a video posted by AsapSCIENCE on Youtube explaining the Monty Hall Problem. Initially when I watched the video, the problem did not make much sense to me because I simply could not understand why the most straightforward and commonsensical answer was wrong. I

The probability of winning when the selection was switched was 85%, the probability of winning when the selection was not switched dropped to 50%. At first the results were surprising then the reason for the sudden success came to me. When the original selection is not switched the odds of choosing the correct door is 1 in 3 or 33%. However, when the selection is switched an incorrect option is removed, then the contestant is given the opportunity to switch their selection from the two doors remaining. At this point with only two doors to choose from the odds of selecting the correct door is 1 in 2, or 50%.