I'll agree that this can be inaccurate/illogical/misleading/confusing/frustrating. Given that "50% more" is equivalent to the addition of 50% of the original va

I'll agree that this can be inaccurate/illogical/misleading/confusing/frustrating. Given that "50% more" is equivalent to the addition of 50% of the original value, and "50% less" is equivalent to its subtraction, "25 times less" is essentially the equivalent of "2500% less", which would mean Jupiter receives -2400% the light of Earth per square metre. Understandably nonsensical. Granted there are more issues with that sentence than just the "25 times less". If I've done my math correctly, since Jupiter's radius is approximately 11 times that of Earth, Jupiter will have in the order of 380 times the surface area of Earth available to catch light. At 5 times the distance that actually works out at around 15 times more incident light than Earth in total, even if it is at about 1/25th the intensity.