3 ms·

How could the next draw be more likely to be red than the draw already known to be red?

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
You are basically asking "how could it possibly be the wrong answer?". Yes, under that definition of "more likely", it cannot be more likely. It can be equally likely or less likely. And then weighted it would be less likely. And that would be the answer. Which is one of the choices.
- thfuran 3y ago
  No, I'm saying "Your interpretation of the sentence is obviously wrong". With that interpretation, parts of the question are nonsense. The more straightforward interpretation does not have that problem.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    1 - I said it's poorly worded, I didn't interpret it that way. I could see how people would misinterpret it (as pointed out by the parent comment) and people did misinterpret it that way. Look at the other posts here. If someone posts a question in english and a bunch of english speakers misinterpret the question, it's poorly worded by definition. 2 - Exactly what parts of the question are nonsense under that interpretation?
sampo 3y ago
> How could the next draw be more likely to be red than the draw already known to be red? Under this interpretation, the second ball is more likely to be green.
dullcrisp 3y ago
I had the same question but the interpretation they're considering is whether the next ball you draw will be more likely to be red than the red ball you drew was likely to be red before you drew it but after the total number of red balls was already determined. Like: you have a box with a whole bunch of red and green balls. Would removing a red ball increase or decrease the likelihood of drawing a red ball from the box in the future? I wouldn't buy that as a reasonable misinterpretation of the question in most cases, but I don't know what standard of analysis holds for Twitter polls. I think it's a matter of knowing that the phrase "where n is chosen uniformly at random" means something very different in a probability question than "where n is an arbitrary value".

You are basically asking "how could it possibly be the wrong answer?". Yes, under that definition of "more likely", it cannot be more likely. It can be equally likely or less likely. And then weighted it would be less likely. And that would be the answer. Which is one of the choices.

thfuran 3y ago
No, I'm saying "Your interpretation of the sentence is obviously wrong". With that interpretation, parts of the question are nonsense. The more straightforward interpretation does not have that problem.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  1 - I said it's poorly worded, I didn't interpret it that way. I could see how people would misinterpret it (as pointed out by the parent comment) and people did misinterpret it that way. Look at the other posts here. If someone posts a question in english and a bunch of english speakers misinterpret the question, it's poorly worded by definition. 2 - Exactly what parts of the question are nonsense under that interpretation?

sampo 3y ago

> How could the next draw be more likely to be red than the draw already known to be red? Under this interpretation, the second ball is more likely to be green.

dullcrisp 3y ago

I had the same question but the interpretation they're considering is whether the next ball you draw will be more likely to be red than the red ball you drew was likely to be red before you drew it but after the total number of red balls was already determined. Like: you have a box with a whole bunch of red and green balls. Would removing a red ball increase or decrease the likelihood of drawing a red ball from the box in the future? I wouldn't buy that as a reasonable misinterpretation of the question in most cases, but I don't know what standard of analysis holds for Twitter polls. I think it's a matter of knowing that the phrase "where n is chosen uniformly at random" means something very different in a probability question than "where n is an arbitrary value".