Analysis of The Ambiguity
If it is assumed that this information was obtained by looking at both children to see if there is at least one boy, the condition is both necessary and sufficient. Three of the four equally probable events for a two-child family in the sample space above meet the condition:
| Older child | Younger child |
|---|---|
| Girl | Boy |
| Boy | Girl |
| Boy | Boy |
Thus, if it is assumed that both children were considered while looking for a boy, the answer to question 2 is 1/3. However, if the family was first selected and then a random, true statement was made about the gender of one child (whether or not both were considered), the correct way to calculate the conditional probability is not to count the cases that match. Instead, one must add the probabilities that the condition will be satisfied in each case:
| Older child | Younger child | P(this case) | P("at least one boy" given this case) | P(both this case, and "at least one boy") |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Girl | Girl | 1/4 | 0 | 0 |
| Girl | Boy | 1/4 | 1/2 | 1/8 |
| Boy | Girl | 1/4 | 1/2 | 1/8 |
| Boy | Boy | 1/4 | 1 | 1/4 |
The answer is found by adding the numbers in the last column wherever you would have counted that case: (1/4)/(0+1/8+1/8+1/4)=1/2. Note that this is not necessarily the same as reporting the gender of a specific child, although doing so will produce the same result by a different calculation. For instance, if the younger child is picked, the calculation is (1/4)/(0+1/4+0+1/4)=1/2. In general, 1/2 is a better answer any time a Mr. Smith with a boy and a girl could have been identified as having at least one girl.
Read more about this topic: Boy Or Girl Paradox
Famous quotes containing the words analysis of, analysis and/or ambiguity:
“Cubism had been an analysis of the object and an attempt to put it before us in its totality; both as analysis and as synthesis, it was a criticism of appearance. Surrealism transmuted the object, and suddenly a canvas became an apparition: a new figuration, a real transfiguration.”
—Octavio Paz (b. 1914)
“Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good, in so far as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural prejudices, and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free, refines, humanizes, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in so far as it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims life at its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as death.”
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)
“Legends of prediction are common throughout the whole Household of Man. Gods speak, spirits speak, computers speak. Oracular ambiguity or statistical probability provides loopholes, and discrepancies are expunged by Faith.”
—Ursula K. Le Guin (b. 1929)