Subscription pricing
I had a lot of trouble with this in drilling and BR. I believe what I was missing is the following:
Likelihood of theft
Average for theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 50%
Average for theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 80%
Average for non-theft-prone cars (with anti theft): 10%
Average for non-theft-prone cars (without anti theft): 8%
So yes, anti-theft devices do generally reduce the chance of theft, but if most anti-theft devices are on the most theft-prone cars, then there will still be a correlative relationship between these two.
1
5 comments
You are right on point!
@jkatz1488955 thanks! so it looks like i came to understand the issue correctly. would you say the explanation i used above matches yours?
"statistical study of automobile theft"
It's a claim
It is a valid correlation NOT cause and effect
What could be a valid confound or 3rd variable to explain the phenomenon?
The only clear explanation is based on statistics
"Automobile owners who have particularly
theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest
incidence of car theft are those who are most
likely to have antitheft devices installed." This is the only answer that addresses the correlation itself. More theft prone cars in high theft prone locations = more of a need for anti theft devices and the greater PROBABILITY of these cars being stolen.
@jkatz1488955 said:
I tried to look this up, but PT17 is LG and no Q25. Double check if you still want feedback.
Post title says PT 7
I tried to look this up, but PT17 is LG and no Q25. Double check if you still want feedback.