Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Cambridge Question - The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Mauritius
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    2

    Angry Cambridge Question - The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

    ************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************
    EXERCISE 4B Question 13
    - Statistics 1 (Steve Dobbs & Jane Miller)

    "The Prosecutor's Fallacy. An accused prisoner is on trial. The defense lawyer asserts that, in the absence of further evidence, the probability that the prisoner is guilty is 1 in a million. The prosecuting lawyer produces a further piece of evidence and asserts that, if the prisoner were guilty, the probability that this evidence would be obtained is 999 in 1000, and if he were not guilty it would be only 1 in 1000; in other words, P(evidence|guilty)= 0.999, and P(evidence|not guilty)= 0.001. Assuming that the court admits the legality of the evidence, and that both lawyers' figures are correct, what is the probability that the prisoner is guilty?"

    Book Answer: 0.000998

    ************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************

    This is one of the last few challenging and out of syllabus question in my textbooks. I am confused about ways to tackle it, whether this need Bayes' theorem, some linear solution or simply by Tree diagram.

    I have been desperately listening Alexandra Stan (Million) all day, atleast I won't forget the question and you can do same, trying to find a solution to that problem and hoping someone to clearly show a solution. Thank you.


    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    From
    Australia
    Posts
    3,648
    Thanks
    601

    Re: Cambridge Question - The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

    Hey zikcau25.

    Hint: P(Evidence|guilty) + P(Evidence|not guilty) = P(Evidence). P(Guilty) = 1/1000000. P(Evidence and Guilty) = P(Evidence|Guilty)*P(Guilty).

    What is P(Guilty|Evidence) equal to? (Remember also that P(A|B) = (P(B|A)*P(A))/P(B))
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Mauritius
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    2

    Lightbulb Re: Cambridge Question - The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

    Master Chiro, thank you so much for guiding me to the correct answer. All credits goes to you but it contradicts two of your proposals.

    Firstly,
    P(Evidence|Guilty) + P(Evidence|not Guilty) \neq P(Evidence)
    (Checked using numerical values, IF P(A)=0.75, P(B|A)=0.8, P(B|A')=0.6, P(B)=0.75, P(A|B)=0.8 then P(B|A) + P(B|A')P(B) as 0.8 + 0.6 ≠ 0.75)

    Secondly,
    The probability of the prisoner is guilty is interpreted by P(Guilty|Evidence) instead of P(Evidence and Guilty)


    ************************************************** ************************************************** ***
    Here my solution,

    (expressed in terms of G for Guilty, G' for not Guilty, E for Evidence, E' for no Evidence).


    Bayes' Theorem says:

    1. Simple form:

    P(E|G)=\frac{P(E)\cdot P(G|E)}{{\color{DarkBlue} P(G)}}

    P(G|E)=\frac{P(G)\cdot P(E|G)}{{\color{DarkBlue} P(E)}}


    2. Extended form:

    P(E|G)=\frac{P(E)\cdot P(G|E)}{{\color{DarkBlue} P(E)\cdot P(G|E)+P(E')\cdot P(G|E')}}

    P(G|E)=\frac{P(G)\cdot P(E|G)}{{\color{DarkBlue} P(G)\cdot P(E|G)+P(G')\cdot P(E|G')}}


    **********************************
    Now, referring back to our initial question,

    Given that:

    P(G)=\frac{1}{10^{6}}, so P(G')=\frac{999999}{10^{6}}

    P(E|G)=0.999

    P(E|G')=0.001

    Evidently, the second equation of the extended form P(G|E)=\frac{P(G)\cdot P(E|G)}{{\color{DarkBlue} P(G)\cdot P(E|G)+P(G')\cdot P(E|G')}} requires just all the values that we have got.

    Substituting the values,

    P(G|E)=\frac{\frac{1}{10^{6}}\times 0.999}{\frac{1}{10^{6}}\times 0.999+\frac{999999}{10^{6}}\times 0.001}= 0.000 998 (3 sig.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,693
    Thanks
    1466

    Re: Cambridge Question - The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

    I really hate using long, complicated, formulas like that! Here is how I would do it:

    Imagine a population of 1,000,000,000 people (chosen to avoid fractions). Since "in the absence of further evidence, the probability that the prisoner is guilty is 1 in a million", 1000 of those people are guilty. Of those 1000 people, 999 would have this particular "evidence" against them. Of the 999,991,000 who are not guilty, 1 in a thousand, 999,991 would have this evidence. That is, of the total 999+ 999,991= 1000990 people against whom we could find this evidence, 999 are guilty. The probability that a person, against whom we have that evidence, is guilty is [tex]\frac{999}{1000990}= 0.000998[/quote] as you say.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Find out fallacy(2)
    Posted in the Math Challenge Problems Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 5th 2009, 03:14 PM
  2. Find out fallacy
    Posted in the Math Challenge Problems Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 1st 2009, 10:39 PM
  3. Probability fallacy
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 16th 2009, 11:24 PM
  4. Question from Cambridge STEP Paper.
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 3rd 2008, 01:23 PM
  5. does any know where can i get new cambridge statistical table
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 28th 2008, 09:37 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum