Suppose that after reflecting on how difficult it is for people to interpret test results using probabilities and Bayes' Theorem, you try to improve people's reasoning by giving them the following information:

10 out of every 1,000 women at age 40 who participate in routine screening have breast cancer.

A of every 10 women with breast cancer will get a positive mammography. 95 out of every 990 women without breast cancer will also get a positive mammography. Here is a new representative sample of women at age 40 who got a positive mammography in routine screening. How many of these women do you expect to actually have breast cancer? -_ out of From Gigerenzer's evolutionary perspective, give one reason why this information format might improve people's reasoning and explain one way in which this information format is limited and might be further improved. Your answer should be less than 200 words.

To determine how many women with a positive mammography actually have breast cancer, we can use Bayes' Theorem with the given dataTo determine how many women with a positive mammography actually have breast cancer, we can use Bayes' Theorem with the given 

- 10 out of every 1,000 women have breast cancer.
- 9 out of 10 women with breast cancer get a positive mammography.
- 95 out of 990 women without breast cancer get a positive mammography.

First, calculate the total number of women who get a positive mammography:

- Women with cancer who test positive: \(10 \times \frac{9}{10} = 9\)
- Women without cancer who test positive: \(990 \times \frac{95}{990} = 95\)

So, the total number of women who test positive is \(9 + 95 = 104\).

Now, calculate the probability that a woman who tests positive actually has breast cancer:

\[ P(\text{cancer}|\text{positive}) = \frac{P(\text{positive}|\text{cancer}) \times P(\text{cancer})}{P(\text{positive})} \]

Using the numbers:

\[ P(\text{cancer}|\text{positive}) = \frac{9}{104} \approx 0.0865 \]

Therefore, out of 104 women who get a positive mammography, approximately 9 are expected to actually have breast cancer. This simplifies to about 9 out of 104.

### Reason why this information format might improve reasoning:
Presenting information in natural frequencies (e.g., "10 out of every 1,000 women") rather than abstract probabilities can make it easier for people to understand and apply Bayesian reasoning. Natural frequencies align more closely with how people intuitively process statistical information.

### Limitation and improvement:
A limitation of this format is that it still requires mental calculations to determine the final probability, which can be challenging for some individuals. This format could be further improved by explicitly stating the posterior probability (e.g., "9 out of 104 women with a positive mammography have breast cancer") to eliminate the need for further computation.

Do you want details or have any questions?

Here are some related questions you might ask:
1. Can you explain Bayes' Theorem in more detail?
2. How do you calculate probabilities from natural frequencies?
3. What are common misconceptions about interpreting medical test results?
4. How can Bayesian reasoning be applied in other contexts?
5. What are some other methods to improve statistical reasoning?

**Tip:** When dealing with probabilities, converting them to natural frequencies can help make them more intuitive and easier to understand.

Explore how Bayesian reasoning can be applied to interpret breast cancer screening results using natural frequencies. Learn the application of Bayes' Theorem with a detailed example of women's health statistics.

Math Problem Statement

Solution

Ask a new question for Free

By Image

Math Problem Analysis

Mathematical Concepts

Formulas

Theorems

Suitable Grade Level

Related Recommendation