So Dr Soconfuseme we meet aga|n!

1

1nIS IS CNL A 1LS1 of Lhe SLCS (sLudenLemergencycomplalnLsysLem)
lf Lhls were a real emergencycomplalnL you would be glven furLher lnformaLlon ln Lhe form of
muffled yelps moans and emoLlonally charged avowals followed by frequenL rolllng of Lhe
eyes fldgeLlng and ?ou can guess Lhe resL 1PlS lS CnL? A 1LS1
Pello agaln ur Soconfuseme re Lxam l83191
l appreclaLe LhaL you do noL formulaLe Lhe quesLlons conLalned ln Lhe qulzzes or exams 8uL lf
you donL mlnd and malnly [usL for Lhe fun of lL (before l lose my mlnd) l was hoplng you would
conslder Lhe followlng and share your response wlLh me
8e CuesLlon #313 from Lhe qulz lL sLaLes Accordlng Lo Lhe LexLbook adulL males make up
almosL 93 of Lhe prlson populaLlons 1rue/lalse
1he Lechnlcally correcL answer of course was Lrue however and (please bear wlLh me here)
l had noLed from Lhe LexL Lhe flgure glven was 93 and subsequenLly upon checklng l found Lhe
followlng on pg 2039 lL sLaLes lncarceraLlon of male adulLs who make up abouL 93 of Lhe
prlson populaLlon 1exL 93 qulz 93 So l of course (afLer Lhree or four momenLs of serlous
reflecLlon) answered false (And here lL comes)
8ecause
As l see lL Lhe lssue revolves around Lhe relaLlve meanlngs of abouL almosL and Lhe followlng
1he values glven ln Lhe LexLbook would noL lm Lhlnklng belong Lo elLher Lhe nomlnal nor
ordlnal scales of measuremenL nomlnal scale measuremenLs only allow for quallLaLlve
classlflcaLlons le only Lhe/a dlsLlncLlon vlsvls as Lo wheLher someLhlng belongs Lo/ln a glven
caLegory dlscreLe from all oLher caLegorles Lhls and Lhe facL Lhey glve us no furLher way Lo rank
or quanLlfy Lhem would seem Lo ellmlnaLe Lhere belonglng Lo Lhe nomlnal scale ln conLrasL
ordlnal scale measuremenLs would/do allow for a crude ranklng of quallLles/characLerlsLlcs buL
only a propos LhaL Lhere ls more or less of a glven quallLy buL dlsappolnLlngly noL ln Lerms of
magnlLude le how much more or less of sald quanLlLy Lhere ls whlch as lL regards percenLages
ls noL by deflnlLlon a llmlLaLlon WhaLs more because percenLages represenL conLlnuous
(dependenL) noL sure abouL Lhe dependenL parL values and because values glven as a
percenLage noL only allow us Lo dlsLlngulsh a/Lhe dlfference ln Lhe quallLy/quanLlLles(s)
connecLed wlLh sald caLegorles/varlables ln relaLlon Lo one anoLher buL also expllclLly how
much more or less of Lhe lL Lhere ls or lsnL ln relaLlon Lo one or Lhe oLher Lhe numbers 93()
and 93() would lnsLead be aL Lhe lnLerval/raLlo scale of measures(s) buL more preclsely ln Lhls
case Lhe raLlo scale Slnce Lhey havlng Lhe shared feaLure of an absoluLe zero allow us noL only
Lo say exacLly how much greaLer or lesser one ls from Lhe oLher buL also for lnsLance should we
So Dr Soconfuseme we meet aga|n!


2

wlsh Lo LhaL x ls Lwo Llmes greaLer Lhan y or b ls 1/3 of a le a/Lhe raLlo(s) amongsL and Lo one
anoLher
ln any evenL Lhe LexL uses Lhe word abouL ln reference Lo Lhe number 93 and Lhe qulz uses Lhe
Lerm almosL ln reference Lo Lhe number 93 ConLexLually whlle conslderlng elLher of Lhese
words/Lerms ln reference Lo numbers ln general buL speclflcally here ln Lhls case Lhe numbers
93 and 93 respecLlvely lL would Lo my way of Lhlnklng lnfer or aL Lhe very leasL allude Lo a/Lhe
maLhemaLlcal process of roundlngLo or a roundlngof someLhlng be lL a value or number
whlch leads me Lo Lhe followlng
8egardlng Lhe values 93() on Lhe one hand and 93() on Lhe oLher Lhe concepL(s) of
(abouL 93 percenL) or (almosL 93) are absLracL values LhaL would maLhemaLlcally resulL from
Lhe roundlng of Lhe conLlnuous values anywhere wlLhln Lhe lnLerval dellneaLed by and lncludlng
Lhe numbers 923 Lo 934 for 93 Whlle a roundlng whlch produces a value of 93() would
maLhemaLlcally enLall Lhls same process be applled Lo any of Lhe conLlnuous values dellneaLed
by and lncludlng Lhe lnLerval deflned by Lhe numerlcal quanLlLles 943 Lo 934 Any
maLhemaLlcal roundlng of values ouLslde elLher of Lhese ranges respecLlvely no maLLer how
mlnuscule produces nelLher Lhe numbers/values 93() nor 93() buL some oLher
numbers/value(s) lnsLead So whlle Lhe Lerms abouL/almosL could be consLrued Lo mean or
slgnlfy Lhe use of any of a number of proxlmaLe values a more llLeral lnLerpreLaLlon would
leave less wlggle room so Lo speak le Lhe afore menLloned lnLervals
So you see my dllemma!
lf l had answered Lrue ln response Lo quesLlon (# 313) l would have been Lechnlcally correcL
buL facLually" wrong however by answerlng false l by my own lnfalllble albelL clrcular loglc
would be facLually" correcL buL alas Lechnlcally" wrong and Lhus would ln addlLlon (or ln Lhls
case subLracLlon) Lo noL only suffer Lhe lgnomlny of belng wrong buL would appendage myself
Lhe unforLunaLe concomlLanL resulL le Lhe deflclL of one qulz polnL (Whlch belleve lL or noL l
granL ls no blg deal ln lLself and yeL one could asserL LhaL lL may falrly be reasoned even lf
ever so remoLely Lhe posslblllLy exlsLs lL (Lhe deflclL of one qulz polnL) could become more so
ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe larger plcLure)
l am more Lhan a llLLle heslLanL aL Lhls polnL (afLer havlng [usL read Lhls) and so now am
havlng some serlous doubLs abouL my Llme managemenL skllls and prlorlLles along wlLh more
Lhan a llLLle unease abouL my clearly dlscernlble ablllLy Lo make mounLalns ouL of mole hllls as
Lo wheLher or noL l should acLually send Lhls Lspeclally could you posslbly end up conslderlng lL
as elLher a wasLe of your Llme or worse? Whlch lL ls noL nor whlch was my lnLenLlon
Slncerely and respecLfully lfyahdonL Chwell