{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026709401709401708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008547008547008548, 'mean_word_length': 4.930379746835443, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
More about linda or conjunctions in context

Abstract Tversky and Kahneman (1982; 1983) reported that subjects rated the con junction of two events as more likely than one of the component events. This “conjunction effect” is an error in terms of formal probability, where the probability of more happening is always smaller than the probability of less. They explained this effect in terms of a “representativeness” heuristic. This paper focuses on the context of the problem and the suggestions implied by the questions in the task. The three studies reported here provide evidence that context effects and implicit suggestions alter subjects' judgements. Tvenky and Kahneman's models take no account of such factors. Two studies show that when implicit suggestions are reduced, subjects are much less prone to the conjunction “effect”. Subjects take being asked the question “Is person X a Y?”, as providing evidence that X may be Y.