On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Adrian wrote:

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

**** me, but you really do have a problem with comprehension, don't
you?

Well, if I've understood you correctly, you are indeed f**ked on this
one.

And therein lies the problem. You clearly DON'T understand me correctly,
because you have an axe to grind.

Your original claim was that a lower proportion of those using taxis
would be likely to be affected than the population at general.

I don't believe that is so, and repeated claims (of the blindingly
obvious fact) that more people are poor than rich doesn't come close to
justifying your assertion.

You're either illiterate, simple, or just not paying attention properly.

The original claim is "People who take taxis are less likely to be those
affected by living near heavy traffic"; i take it we're agreed in assuming
that the 'less likely' means 'less likely than in the whole population of
London'.

The argument supporting this is a good old-fashioned syllogism consisting
of two premises:

- people who take taxis are less likely to be from deprived areas.

- people who live in deprived areas are more likely to be those affected
by living near heavy traffic

Either the structure of the argument is duff, the first premise is false,
the second premise is false, or the claim is true.

The structure looks okay to me. If you don't think so, do explain.

The first premise looks good to me - even with taxicard getting poor
cripples into cabs, i'd say cabs are mostly used by well-off people. If
Mike Hughes, or any other cab driver, is reading this, perhaps he could
give us his impression?

The second premise is supported by studies people have posted. If you want
to overturn it, you're going to need some hard data. Do you have that?

If not, you have to admit that either the claim is true, or that you're
illiterate, simple or not paying attention properly.

tom

--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10