LSAT Advice: Eschew the Facial Tattoo

So you also probably know that Michelle McGee, the woman who had an affair with Jesse James (Sandra Bullock's ex-husband) is highly tattooed. Soon after the affair graced the cover of a bevy of highly reputable magazines like US Weekly and In Touch, Sandra divorced Jesse. It was clear that his adultery was a motivating force. However, as much as the public denigrated the adultery, it seemed that Ms. McGee's heavily tattoed appearance exacerbated the crime.

That thought made me, Jodi Triplett, a bit mystified. Why should McGee’s facial tattoos make us even more condemning of James' adultery? I think the LSAT can shed some light.

Sandra Bullock is an actress known for being in entirely wholesome, middle-of-the-road fare. She’s about as all-American as they come. This might lead one to assume that James is attracted to this type of woman, and thus the next woman he would be with would likely be cut from a similar cloth. Sort of like when Pam Anderson started going out with Kid Rock. This wasn’t much of a surprise to anyone, given the fact that she had previously been with Tommy Lee. She’s clearly got a type; scummy rockers with bad boy reputations. Brad Pitt going from Jennifer to Angelina is still pretty unsurprising – they’re both famous celebrities, and they’re both very attractive. One might be vanilla and the other lemon chiffon, but they’re both variations of cake.

But assuming that this must be the case is highly fallacious, and the McGee-James-Bullock love triangle demonstrates rather pointedly. Sure, James went for the all-American white bread candidate the first time, but we can’t assume anything about his future picks in women based on one single solitary case, an extremely limited sample if there ever was one. If we think he’ll go for another Bullock incarnation, then we’re committing the sampling fallacy (covered in lesson 6, if you’re taking Blueprint LSAT Prep).

When you’ve got a sample of some sort, three things have to happen: the sample has to be intelligibly related to any conclusions being made; the respondents cannot have to reason to lie (or be purposefully misled), and the sample has to be representative. If any of these conditions fails to be met, you’ve got a big old sampling fallacy on your hands. Here, the sample size is too small to know if the sample is representative. It turns out, (as US Weekly was so quick to show us), it wasn't.

by Jodi Triplett