Mike Andrews (mandrews@MAIL.EROLS.COM)
Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:31:15 GMT
On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:21:57 UT, you wrote:
>On Thurs March 7th you wrote
>From: SCOUTS-L - Youth Groups Discussion List on behalf of Mike Andrews
>Sent: March 07, 1996 8:21 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list SCOUTS-L
>Subject: Re: Proof
>>My interpretation of the above paragraph:
>>Group 1: (Men who were Boy Scouts)
>> 33% of these men have incomes > 50,000 (67% < 50,000)
>>Group 2: (Men who were not Boy Scouts)
>> 17% of these men have incomes > 50,000 (83% < 50,000)
>This would indicate that 83% of the men with incomes under $50,000
>WERE boy scouts!
>You must never have taken a logic course in college!
>Take ALL the men in the survey and divide them into ONLY 2 Groups which are:
>ONLY All Former Boy Scouts in Group 1 and ONLY all Non-Boy Scouts in Group 2.
>You cannot then logically say that the 83% in Group 2 were Boy Scouts as none
>were in the group to begin with. They were ALWAYS in Group 1!
No I missed that one! But if I understand what you are saying it is
that 67% of the men who were Boy Scouts did not make more than $50,000
correct? That covers Group 1. That doesn't say much for our earning
What does Group 2 say then? That only 17% of the non Boy Scouters made
more than $50,000? Where are the rest of the Group 2 people???
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City