According to the passage, the LRCWA's report recommended that contingency-fee agreements
Magan-Leystraon February 13, 2023
Question 15
I read the other replies for the confusion regarding question 15, however, I think what threw me off here is the "all other things being equal" part of the argument. If all other things are equal, then we can safely assume that these people are either all unhappy, happy, or neither. In this case, option D does still make sense, as it is not the pets that are the cause of a person's unhappiness, but I still do not understand how option A is not the optimal choice here since the goal is to be as happy as possible.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, I think you be slightly misinterpreting what it means when we say all other things being equal. That just means that we are holding all other possible confounding variables equal ( like income, age, geography). In other words, it's saying that we are making sure we are looking at similar samples of pet owners and non pet owners, and the non pet owners tend to be happier than the pet owners.
Magan-Leystraon February 17, 2023
Oh okay. Thank you for clarifying this. Is there a way I could prevent myself from these kinds of misinterpretations in the future? I see what you mean, it's just that I'm not sure how to know when not to assume that all other things being equal wouldn't refer to their overall happiness level.
Emil-Kunkinon February 22, 2023
So in general, when we read that "all other things being held constant" we can assume that the thing at issue is not being held constant, but all other possible factors are. More specifically, I think you might benefit from reading slowly. This kind of mistake is really quite easy to make if you're trying to rush!
