Yeah, had the same impression. The whole "fallacy" seems to be based on presenting the question in a misleading way. If the options had been: A) Linda is a ban

Yeah, had the same impression. The whole "fallacy" seems to be based on presenting the question in a misleading way. If the options had been: A) Linda is a bank teller and is also active in the feminist movement B) Linda is a bank teller, whether or not she is active in the feminist movement then I think more people would have realized that B contains A and is not a separate choice from a. The second point is that the criterion "linda is a bank teller" is actually superfluous, because there is no choice "linda is not a bank teller" and the probability is the same in all choices. At the same time, this is the only criterion for choice B. So if you factor out the "bank teller" term, the question becomes: Assume Linda had a history of social activism and is now a bank teller, which is more probable? A) Linda is active in the feminist movement B) Linda exists, I guess? So if presented unambiguously, the question actually becomes meaningless.