Clearly, adults who own livestock are more likely to be affected by the proposed legislation than are adults who do not own livestock.
I chose D by eliminating the others. What I cant understand is why does the assumption say that adults who own livestock are more likey to be affected? They will be affected, yes, because 12% of them voted for it..but why more affected?
In Ron's example : 55% of people in California support the legalization of marijuana. However, 80% of people under 30 support the legalization of marijuana. Therefore, people under 30 must be more likely to smoke marijuana than older people.
If the analogy said 12% of the people under 30 support the legalization , then we will conclude simply that the legalizaton does affect them, but not any more likely than say any other group that also voted in support. Right?
I chose D by eliminating the others. What I cant understand is why does the assumption say that adults who own livestock are more likey to be affected? They will be affected, yes, because 12% of them voted for it..but why more affected?
In Ron's example : 55% of people in California support the legalization of marijuana. However, 80% of people under 30 support the legalization of marijuana. Therefore, people under 30 must be more likely to smoke marijuana than older people.
If the analogy said 12% of the people under 30 support the legalization , then we will conclude simply that the legalizaton does affect them, but not any more likely than say any other group that also voted in support. Right?
















