Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT 50 Section 4 Q22

rockytoralrockytoral Alum Member
edited November 2015 in General 149 karma


  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited November 2015 7468 karma
    Why might the argument be overvaluing the traits in the premise? Why might the fact that more pedestrians get hit by cars when crossing with the light than crossing against NOT follow that it is less dangerous to cross against the light than cross with the light?

    Think about how many people in total normally cross with the light vs. how many people normally cross against the light. Let’s say we have a crosswalk and over a year’s time, 2 people have been hit by a car crossing with the light and only 1 person has been hit by a car crossing against the light. But let’s also say that in that time, 100 people have crossed with the light, while only 5 people have dared to cross against the light. So 2 in 100 people have been killed while crossing with the light while 1 in 5 people get killed while crossing against the light. Which one sounds more dangerous now? What this argument is failing to consider is just how many people cross with or against in total to assess just how dangerous or risky it really is.
  • rockytoralrockytoral Alum Member
    149 karma
    Makes complete sense! Thank you!
Sign In or Register to comment.