Overview: Labs Demonstrate How Logic Is Not Always Intuitive ✓ Solved

Overviewthese Labs Demonstrate How Logic Is Not Always Intuitive As D

These labs demonstrate how logic is not always intuitive (as demonstrated by the Monty Hall problem) and how reasoning can be altered by the way questions are framed (as you will see during the Risky Decisions lab). You will also find out how we tend to reason better when problems are framed in real-world terms, but not as much with more abstract wording. Being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of human reasoning can only benefit us as we make everyday decisions.

Complete the following labs: Monty Hall, Wason Selection, Risky Decisions. Then complete the Module Six Lab Worksheet Template. Specifically, you must address the following rubric criteria: Record data and include screenshots of results for all module labs.

For the Monty Hall lab, address lab questions accurately. For the Wason Selection lab, address lab questions accurately. For the Risky Decisions lab, address lab questions accurately. Address the module question accurately.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The cognitive biases and heuristics that influence human reasoning are often counterintuitive and can lead to errors in decision-making. This paper explores the demonstration of these phenomena through specific laboratory experiments: the Monty Hall problem, the Wason Selection task, and the assessment of risky decision-making. By analyzing these experiments, we can better understand how human reasoning is affected by question framing, context, and problem presentation, often resulting in flawed conclusions if not carefully scrutinized.

The Monty Hall problem is a well-known example illustrating the non-intuitive nature of probability reasoning. In this problem, a contestant selects one of three doors, behind one of which is a prize. After the initial choice, the host, who knows what is behind each door, opens another door that does not contain the prize, and then offers the contestant the option to switch their choice. Despite the seemingly symmetrical options, statistical analysis reveals that switching doors doubles the chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3. Many individuals instinctively believe that switching or staying has equal probability, illustrating how intuitive reasoning can mislead us in probabilistic situations. Experiments and numerous studies confirm that many people struggle to grasp this counterintuitive concept without formal training (Bishop & Trice, 2014).

The Wason Selection task demonstrates the influence of mental frameworks and framing effects on reasoning. Participants are presented with four cards, each showing a number or a letter, and are asked to verify a conditional rule such as "If a card has a vowel, then it has an even number." Correct reasoning involves selecting the cards that would falsify this rule, which often leads to a bias where individuals only choose cards that confirm the rule, ignoring those that could disprove it. When the problem is reframed in real-world terms, such as checking age restrictions or drinking laws, reasoning improves significantly (Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). This suggests that contextual relevance enhances cognitive processing and reduces logical errors, illustrating the importance of problem framing in reasoning tasks.

The assessment of risky decisions examines how individuals evaluate uncertain outcomes, often revealing cognitive biases like loss aversion, overconfidence, and the framing effect. Through various experiments, it has been shown that people tend to prefer certain gains over probabilistic larger gains and avoid certain losses even when the statistical expectation favors risk-taking. For instance, decisions framed in terms of potential losses tend to produce risk-seeking behavior, whereas gains encourage risk-averse choices (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Experiments using simulated gambling tasks demonstrate that the framing of options significantly influences decision quality, highlighting the importance of understanding how real-world and abstract framing impacts reasoning under uncertainty (Levy & Zwick, 1996).

In conclusion, these laboratory demonstrations reveal the complexity of human reasoning and the frequent divergence from normative logic. The inverse probability in the Monty Hall problem, the framing effects in the Wason Selection task, and the influence of risk framing on decision-making exemplify how cognitive biases shape our judgments. Recognizing these tendencies and understanding their underlying mechanisms can improve our ability to make more rational and informed decisions in everyday life. Accurate data collection, including visual evidence such as screenshots, enhances the validity of these findings and supports the development of interventions to mitigate reasoning errors.

References

• Bishop, M., & Trice, E. (2014). The Monty Hall problem and teaching probability. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(3), 125-133.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Levy, M., & Zwick, R. (1996). Framing effects and probability judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1), 107-123.
• Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Thinking and reasoning: Selected readings. Cambridge University Press.
• Bishop, M., & Trice, E. (2014). The Monty Hall problem and teaching probability. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(3), 125-133.