My question should have read "similar style (i.e. reading comprehension) questions", my mistake. I would probably get pretty tilted if the 48 other questions were as ****ty as the two of concern.

Absolutely not. Again, I think we're just dealing with two pretty bad questions in this case. But, with the information given, I would have to choose D for both, and hope for more direct/better questions as I continued.

LOL PHB

The question is a manipulation. And IDK if anybody's mentioned it yet but there's a further problem w/ the question. If quibbling were in order 'more likely' is a lot better than 'most likely.' Giving any answer other than 'D' as MOST likely is lol to me.

it's not exactly wild speculation to conclude that someone who buys a book is likely to read more than average

*Most

*Illustrated

*Read

tho.

I send a postcard from a vacation spot. I am most likely to send more postcards than average?

yes? There are tons of people who don't send any, ever

Ok, how about this one then:

You are a juror in a criminal case. In opening statements the prosecution informs the jury that it will demonstrate that the defendants both encouraged the drinking of alcohol and read more than others. At trial they offer as proof 'They bought a bottle of scotch that John's boss asked for!' and 'they bought an illustrated book for themselves!'

Do you think 'Well, ok then, could be' or 'What. The. ****?'

Some ppl itt obv think there's a clue in here somewhere. After all they have some facts. All they have to do is connect the subtle dots and 'most likely' is revealed.

Of course you can answer that this is not a trial, you will be satisfied w/ 50.1% if you are forced to. OK, I think that's how John Edwards made his fortune. Get a bunch of rubes who can be dazzled by bull****.

D.D.

How do you know how many ppl send postcards?

Based on this info, I don't trust what I think.

I had to sit thru jury selection for a criminal case last year. I remind folks that I used to manage buildings in the West Bronx. I had a blast when it came time to the 'have you ever been the victim of a crime?' question. I think they would've thrown me out right then if it were allowed.

same.

going to read groupthink now, but it did make me initially happy I agreed with CDL even though after further thought I realize I rarely agree with CDL.

Youre right i dont really know that it was a really stupid thing to say. But that doesn't really matter, as far as I can tell as long as there are any people at all who don't send postcards (and clearly this is the case) then the fact that you sent one once means you are more likely to send one in the future then the average person because sending one means you at least have thought about sending one (and followed through) whereas there has to be some percentage of the population who have not sent a postcard and basically never even think about it at all or consider the possibility (me, for instance). At least that's my logic anyway, maybe i'm missing something but if you know there is some percentage of the population who doesn't ever think about sending postcards then it seems like that would automatically move you from where you would be with no info about your postcard habits (right in the middle with no reason to suspect you are any more or less likely) to more likely with this new information that you sent one, ceteris paribus. Maybe not

It's certain that there are many ppl that don't send postcards but just bec there are 'many' doesn't mean you have derived the 'average.' You also mention 'some percentage of the population', again not knowing the average. For all you know the percentage that don't send postcards might be very small. We all now that it's not but it's your assumption and personal experience that are making these points for you, not any solid evidence. That's why I answer D, D: There's not enough info, evidence, however you want to put it to draw a conclusion.

Hopefully clear, I'm under the influence of my sleeping pills atm.

yea I don't understand I guess

seems to me that when we have no information at all then our safest assumption is obviously that you are just plain average. You are no more or less likely than the average person to send a postcard, this is a trivial starting point I think. However, what I was getting at is that on the "less likely than average" side we know that there has to be some people who are never ever sending postcards or thinking about doing so in the future, so once we get that extra information that you have sent a postcard (implying that you consider it a possibility in the future) this means we know you are more likely to do so then some percentage of the population who is never going to. The rest of the population is a complete unknown either way, you are still in the middle of all those people who may think about sending a postcard...now obviously there are going to be some people on the opposite extreme who send tons and tons of postcards, but this doesn't matter because there is no reason either way to assume that you are not one of these people, whereas sending one definitely implies that you are not one of the people on the other extreme. I think this logic is sound, I'm sure someone smarter than me could explain this much more coherently or at least point me out to where I'm wrong. . But this line of reasoning makes sense to me. Basically it boils down to we know you send more postcards then some people because you sent one, but we have no reason to believe you send any less postcards than anyone else, no reason at all, therefore you have to be *more likely* than average with all the available information we have


edit- initially wrote this answer as if you asked whether you are more likely to send a postcard in the future so some of these sentences dont make perfect sense but it doesnt change the main points of the argument. The last sentence is all thats really important I think. It doesnt matter if the percentage is very small, if you knew even one person who has never sent a postcard then you would still be more likely than average with all the information you have I think...the only counterargument I can think of is that we have no reason to believe that there are people who don't send postcards at all but I don't think thats the case intuitively

The prosecutor has an agenda and gets to choose which information to present at trial. The questionnaire has no agenda and cannot be hiding any relevant information because no other information exists. They are hypothetical scenarios that only exist to the extent that they are described in the question.

If the prosecutor can only demonstrate that a person has purchased one book in their life, then you can conclude that they probably read less than average. But if the only thing that you know about a person is that they just purchased a book, then they are likely to read more than average. Your analogy fails because it completely disregards the scope of the knowledge that is available in each case.