Does the following make sense to you:

[NotAnEngineer]

"expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

I.e...

If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%.

If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%.

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.OR

a reduction of 5% of the total amountEDIT: this is not a trick, or some mind game. just take the original phrase at face value. If someone said to you "Im going to express the reduction/addition, as a percentage of the total amount" does that make sense to you??

Im just trying to get a general feel that if I express something like that, would the average "math" person pick up on what I said?

 

[sambarbarian]

yes , yes it does make sense

 

[A.T.]

"expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

I.e...

If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%.

If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%.

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.


OR

a reduction of 5% of the total amount

OR

a reduction by 5pp (percentage point)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point

 

[pgardn]

"expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

I.e...

If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%.

If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%.

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.OR

a reduction of 5% of the total amount

Here is where statements can get one into trouble if not expressed fully in some understandable manner. This reminds me of math problems that come out wrong due to language and are used as lessons. I recall some tricky wording with a hotel and rates.
Imo this is horribly worded. I often catch myself doing the same thing.

My first problem:

If I reduce that number to 15... Are you now only choosing 15 out of the original 100? Or have you actually taken out removed 5 items of the original 20 so that we now have 15 out of 95?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

OR

a reduction by 5pp (percentage point)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point

Yes, that is another way to express it, but does "reduction, as a percentage of the total amount" make sense to you?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

Here is where statements can get one into trouble if not expressed fully in some understandable manner. This reminds me of math problems that come out wrong due to language and are used as lessons. I recall some tricky wording with a hotel and rates.
Imo this is horribly worded. I often catch myself doing the same thing.

My first problem:

If I reduce that number to 15... Are you now only choosing 15 out of the original 100? Or have you actually taken out removed 5 items of the original 20 so that we now have 15 out of 95?

How would you word it??

 

[sophiecentaur]

"expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

I.e...

If I have 20 of 100 items then I have 20%.

If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%.

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.


OR

a reduction of 5% of the total amount

That statement doesn't make it clear what is meant without adding the rest of the story. It is a 'bad' use of the maths. It's true that the 5 items represent 5% of the original 100 and it's true that 5 items represent 25% of the 20 - but so what? The statement is not actually wrong but what sense is there in making it?
Percentages, used more than once in an argument need to be treated with care because people often try to pull a fast one that way.

Multiple 'percentage' reductions should be dealt with correctly, that is by multiplication.
Thus, 20% off then another 10% off is 0.8 X 0.9 (=0.72) or 72%, which means 28% overall reduction and not 30%.

 

[NotAnEngineer]

That statement doesn't make it clear what is meant without adding the rest of the story. It is a 'bad' use of the maths. It's true that the 5 items represent 5% of the original 100 and it's true that 5 items represent 25% of the 20 - but so what? The statement is not actually wrong but what sense is there in making it?

just to simply express a reduction. Does it makes sense to you talk about the reduction in terms of a percentage of the total amount? If it is specified like that of course.

Percentages, used more than once in an argument need to be treated with care because people often try to pull a fast one that way.

Multiple 'percentage' reductions should be dealt with correctly, that is by multiplication.
Thus, 20% off then another 10% off is 0.8 X 0.9 (=0.72) or 72%, which means 28% overall reduction and not 30%.

This is just talking about a single percentage reduction, not multiple.

i.e.
a reduction of 5pp
a reduction of 25%
a reduction of 5% of the total

 

[pgardn]

How would you word it??

Now let's choose 15 out of the original 20. So that would be 15 out of 100 or 15%

to start with...

 

[Naty1]

"Figures don't lie but liars figure."

 

[NotAnEngineer]

Now let's choose 15 out of the original 20. So that would be 15 out of 100 or 15%

to start with...

Okay, I said that much.

Go on...

 

[sophiecentaur]

The fact that you are needing to query it means that the statements could probably be made in a better way and are open to misunderstanding. What is the point of all that preamble if the information is that the five in your hand represent 5% of the original. Are they a "reduction"? I don't see how; they are just five items. What about the other 15 items, of the 20 that were originally taken out? Are they then put back, amongst the 80 still on the shelf? The scenario is a bit baffling.

What would be the purposes of stating the situation in the two different ways? To give information or to cloud the situation?

 

[pgardn]

Okay, I said that much.

Go on...

No actually I did not get that from the original statements.

 

[pgardn]

Then, and this may be my problem, I have no idea what a reduction percentage is.

 

[NotAnEngineer]

The fact that you are needing to query it means that the statements could probably be made in a better way and are open to misunderstanding.

I think there are many ways to express it, and as to which one is better, that is an opinion.

Im just trying to figure out if the general idea of expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total, makes sense to you.

What is the point of all that preamble if the information is that the five in your hand represent 5% of the original. Are they a "reduction"? I don't see how; they are just five items. What about the other 15 items, of the 20 that were originally taken out? Are they then put back, amongst the 80 still on the shelf? The scenario is a bit baffling.

What would be the purposes of stating the situation in the two different ways? To give information or to cloud the situation?

You're thinking about it too much. Again, I really just asking if the general idea of expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total, makes sense to you.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Then, and this may be my problem, I have no idea what a reduction percentage is.

The way figures are presented can be shameless. "Five times less pollution" - wtf? What's wrong with "One fifth of the pollution"?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

No actually I did not get that from the original statements.

"If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%"

i.e. 15 out of 100


Regardless, does the idea of expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount, make sense to you??

 

[NotAnEngineer]

Then, and this may be my problem, I have no idea what a reduction percentage is.

The phrase "reduction percentage" was never used.

This is referring to phrase "reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

 

[sophiecentaur]

Again, I really just asking if the general idea of expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total, makes sense to you.

It's the way prices are advertised in shop windows so I am used to it. I wouldn't like to see it used in a scientific argument except, perhaps, in a summary. Bearing in mind how few people actually understand percentages (this is true) then I would say many people are duped when information is presented in those terms.

 

[pgardn]

The phrase "reduction percentage" was never used.

This is referring to phrase "reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.

My bad I guess. What is the bolded?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

It's the way prices are advertised in shop windows so I am used to it. I wouldn't like to see it used in a scientific argument except, perhaps, in a summary. Bearing in mind how few people actually understand percentages (this is true) then I would say many people are duped when information is presented in those terms.

So which way would you rather see it phrased??

A reduction of 5pp
a reduction of 25%
a reduction of 5% of the total

Or anther way??I don't really see where you are coming from saying that one is more misleading than another. You of course have to know something about percentages to understand either one, but as long as you do, I would think you could figure either one of them out with regards to what it is saying.

 

[pgardn]

"If I reduce that number to 15 then I would have 15%"

i.e. 15 out of 100Regardless, does the idea of expressing a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount, make sense to you??

It does now after reading the posts. I personally did not get your ie to start with. Maybe that's my problem. I have read too many of these types of problems that are used as tricks. Dont take it personally if you wrote it. If you have enough interest to post, I have enough interest to answer honestly.

Where did the 25% come from?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

That would be a reduction of 5 items, or a 25% reduction%.

My bad I guess. What is the bolded?

That is a typo. Now that you know that, can you go back and answer the question.

Thanks in advance.

 

[NotAnEngineer]

It does now after reading the posts.

Where did the 25% come from?

A reduction of the original 20 out of 100, to 15.

5 of 20 = 25%

Or a 25% reducion

 

[NotAnEngineer]

It does now after reading the posts. I personally did not get your ie to start with. Maybe that's my problem. I have read too many of these types of problems that are used as tricks. Dont take it personally if you wrote it. If you have enough interest to post, I have enough interest to answer honestly.

Where did the 25% come from?

It is no trick I all, I promise.

Just if someone were to say to you "a reduction, as a percentage of the total amount"

Would you be able to follow what that means? I am just trying to get a general feel that if I expressed something like that, should the average person (who understands basic math of course) be able to pick up on what I am trying to say.

 

[pgardn]

A reduction of the original 20 out of 100, to 15.

5 of 20 = 25%

Or a 25% reducion

Ok. I did not get that before. And I had no idea that was a typo.

So we are comparing 20% to 15%. There is a 5% difference.

Or a 75% change in percentage. 15/20 = .75

Kinda see what I am talking about? You said reduction so I guess that means subtract the percentages. I am not clowning on you. I have seen too many ways of wording as Sophoc... noted that are used to emphasize something that really is not there, or just too cloud a situation. So yes I now get it.

I am also not an expert at writing questions. I just know what I do understand clearly and what I do not see clearly. I have hated everything I have ever written because I read too much. When I compare my writing to others I feel inclined to slap a pie in my face.

 

[sophiecentaur]

So which way would you rather see it phrased??

A reduction of 5pp
a reduction of 25%
a reduction of 5% of the total

Or anther way??


I don't really see where you are coming from saying that one is more misleading than another. You of course have to know something about percentages to understand either one, but as long as you do, I would think you could figure either one of them out with regards to what it is saying.

I would prefer information to be presented in a way that is relevant and makes sense. Either the 25% figure is important (relating to the 20 items) or the 5% figure (relating to the total) - or, indeed, the initial 20% reduction (relating to the total). Whichever you tell me is the relevant message (and the source of the information would know that, I presume) is the one I want. Your original story has two stages to it so there are three 'transitions' that can be described - overall, or the intermediate steps. You are trying to 'sum up' the process - or some part of it - so choose that particular option and make it clear.

Failing that, the numbers speak well enough for themselves, don't they?

 

[NotAnEngineer]

I would prefer information to be presented in a way that is relevant and makes sense. Either the 25% figure is important (relating to the 20 items) or the 5% figure (relating to the total) - or, indeed, the initial 20% reduction (relating to the total). Whichever you tell me is the relevant message (and the source of the information would know that, I presume) is the one I want. Your original story has two stages to it so there are three 'transitions' that can be described - overall, or the intermediate steps. You are trying to 'sum up' the process - or some part of it - so choose that particular option and make it clear.

Failing that, the numbers speak well enough for themselves, don't they?

I other words, you don't care how its presented, and long as its specific in what it is saying??

Ill make up an example, say you have unemployment numbers, and the unemployment dropped over a certain time. (This is assuring a constant sized workforce)If a year ago unemployment was 6%

Now it is 4%

If were to say that unemployment was reduced by 2% of the total workforce, would you be okay with that??Keep in mind I could also say:
-unemployment was reduced by 2pp
-unemployment was reduced by 33%

^^ those are all saying the same thing, but my question is regarding to the way I originally expressed it... unemployment was reduced by 2% of the total workforce

 

[sophiecentaur]

My answer is that it depends upon what you want to emphasise. 2% is probably a better figure if you are trying to give an idea of the cost of benefit payments but 33% is good if you want people to think you've done a good job as prime minister.
Either figure, on its own, is not enough and I would say that it is not necessarily a good thing to over-condense information into just one figure. To be as fair as possible, you should often include more figures - something about the total workforce size, for a start.
This thread has gone to prove that people couldn't agree about which single figure to present - or what it would actually mean. This proves my point, I think.
Less is not always more. . . . .

 

[NotAnEngineer]

My answer is that it depends upon what you want to emphasise. 2% is probably a better figure if you are trying to give an idea of the cost of benefit payments but 33% is good if you want people to think you've done a good job as prime minister.
Either figure, on its own, is not enough and I would say that it is not necessarily a good thing to over-condense information into just one figure. To be as fair as possible, you should often include more figures - something about the total workforce size, for a start.
This thread has gone to prove that people couldn't agree about which single figure to present - or what it would actually mean. This proves my point, I think.
Less is not always more. . . . .

You're over complicating the issue, which I fully expected someone to do.

Im not trying to emphasis one thing anymore than another. Just simply trying to express the reduction in an understandable way. I think either figure on its own is enough, if specified correctly.

This is just a simple question... "does expressing a change in value, as a percentage of the total amount" make general sense. Yes, or no. You do not need to know anything specific about the total (i.e. the size of the workforce) to answer that question, it is an irrelevant value with regards to the question.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There isn't an understandable way if you chuck away too much information. You HAVE to do more than giving a single figure if you want your statement to make sense. Which would you rather have - air or water? You need both of them.
You ask too much, I think.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I could point out how little use the value of the Mean of a distribution is, without some indication of the range, too. Your example is along exactly the same lines.

 

[NotAnEngineer]

There isn't an understandable way if you chuck away too much information. You HAVE to do more than giving a single figure if you want your statement to make sense. Which would you rather have - air or water? You need both of them.
You ask too much, I think.

How would the specific size of the work force (i.e. the total) be relevant to the question...

"does expressing the reduction, as a percent of the total"

 

[NotAnEngineer]

I could point out how little use the value of the Mean of a distribution is, without some indication of the range, too. Your example is along exactly the same lines.

Hardly.

My example would revolve around the relation of the means of distribution, to the range, and would be completely independent on the value of the range.

Again, you're over complicating the issue.

 

[sophiecentaur]

If you want to give a single figure then, in most contexts, you may as well give them your shoe size. (That is, if they don't already have a load of side information that you're not telling us about)
Are you paying '£100 per character' for publishing this information? Do you want to make sense or 'get away' with giving minimal information?
Have you ever studied statistics in any form or had to present data in practice? Look at the way data is presented in scientific journals and elsewhere. If you read just a single figure then someone may be trying to hide something.
Is a 10% change in your body temperature more or less significant than a 10% change in your salary? Of course range is vital for many statistics.

I don't think anyone is likely to give you a 'one of three' answer, which is what you seem to want. Certainly not me.

PS "Means of distribution" is not the same as "Mean of a distribution". Karl Marx would turn in his grave.