During the case People v. Collins, the prosecution assumed the following chances:
| P(yellow car) = 1/10 | P(woman and blond hair) = 1/3 |
| P(man and mustache) = ¼ | P(black man and beard) = 1/10 |
| P(woman and ponytail) = 1/10 | P(interracial couple in car) = 1/1000 |
Suppose you are called as a witness for the defense. The following prompts are concerned with probabilities related to the prosecution’s probability claims. Using modern resources to estimate probabilities for events in the relevant sample space (time and place), we find:
| P(white) = 0.41 | P(black) = 0.1 |
| P(beard) = 0.05 | P(mustache) = 0.08 |
| P(female) = 0.5 |
1) Notice that P(man and mustache) = ¼ given by the prosecution is much larger than the P(mustache) = 0.08 given here. Assume ‘man with mustache’ means ‘man and mustache’. Given that the events ‘man with mustache’ and ‘mustache’ are slightly different and assuming they describe the same population, could both probabilities be correct? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and explain.
2) Does the larger probability [P(man with mustache) = ¼ vs. P(mustache) = 0.08] given by the prosecution strengthen or weaken their case? Explain.
1)
When we have two events A and B then :
or
But
or
In this case,
P(man and mustache) = 1/4 =0.25
P(mustache) = 0.08
Intersection between two events cannot be greater than either of the events.
Since, P(man and mustache) > P(mustache) , which is not possible. Hence, Both probabilities cannot be correct.
2)
Larger probability [P(man with mustache) = 1/4 vs. P(mustache) = 0.08] given by the prosecution will definitely weaken their case because the chances assumed by the prosecution are not possible as Probability for Mustache with Man cannot be greater than probability of person with mustache.
Probability for Mustache with Man can be less than or equal to probability of person with mustache but not greater than probability of person with mustache.
During the case People v. Collins, the prosecution assumed the following chances: P(yellow car) = 1/10...
Read the following case:
Answer the questions accordingly:
PLEASE MAKE COPY PASTE AVAILABLE
EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Racine 666 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2012) OPINION BY DISTRICT JUDGE YOUNG: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought this action on behalf of two serv- ers, Katrina Shisler and Michelle Powell, who were em- ployed at an International House of Pancakes franchise in Racine, Wisconsin (the "Racine IHOP"), alleging that the servers were sexually harassed in violation of Title VII of...