>2001-09-09
>
>It seems from the link Nat provided, this guy's main beef is with using the
>word "times" when used describe something "less than".
>
>http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/
>
>I'm sorry, but I have no trouble understanding that when something is 5
>times less than something else, that means the same thing as 0.2 or 20 %.
>If he and others have trouble, that is their problem. The one part that may
>be confusing to some is: .....Columnist Molly Ivins cites a congressional
>finding that Mexicans pay "102 percent less" than Americans pay for
>prescription drugs. How do they do that?..... Well, 102 % less, is the same
>as 1.02 times less. or 98 %, which really isn't that much less.
>
>......Even a literate ignoramus can understand a plastic railway car that
>weighs half as much as a conventional steel car. It is the railway car that
>is "230 percent lighter" that baffles us. If we are to believe a reduction
>of 150 percent in teen-age pregnancies, how many teen-age pregnancies do we
>have? Fifty percent fewer than zero? Bad news for obstetricians...........
>
>Why is he baffled? 230 % lighter means 2.3 times lighter or 0.43 (43 %) of
>the weight. A reduction of 150 %, means it is reduced by 1.5 times or 0.67
>or 67 % of a former count.
I beg to differ. If something is 20 % of something else, then it is 80 %
less. If something is 98 % of something else, then it is 2 % less. If
something is 67 % of something else, then it is 33 % less. There seems to
be something wrong with American education in arithmetic. When I was in
Unesco in 1948 I led a staff revolt when the American accountants in the
administration tried to pay us 20 % more when the value of the French franc
dropped 20%. We demanded 25 % more francs.
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
