penguin: I know what he meant. Given the six month gap in between our two comments, you don't think that the stats could have changed in that time? When I left the comment, the %age for Oregon Trail was 4x higher than the %age for Civilization.
25 percent of group A are in group B
25 percent of the amount of people in A is the amount of people in group B
Both of those meanings can be understood from your statement "only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ". All the people who replied to you (including me) immediately understood the first meaning instead of the second one, and I'd argue that's the most natural way to understand that sentence.
example: 100 people took the quiz
20 people got civilization correct but did not get oregon trail
80 people got oregon trail but not civilization
Oregon trail 80%
number of people who got both 0%
the stats for Oregon trail would be 4X higher than those for Civilization but you can't say anything for sure about people who got one also getting the other simply from looking at the percentages.
and your original assertion was "I mean only 25% of the people who got "Oregon Trail" got Civ... that's not right." which you cannot tell simply from the percentages.
In all the Civ games the leader traits are assigned a value of 1-10. In Civ 1, Gandhi's aggression was 1, but when democracy was founded, it reduced aggression by 2, which caused the number to mistakenly be 255 (on a scale of 1-10), so he always declared war.
In subsequent games, Gandhi's aggression was still always set low, but as they have many more traits now, they set building nuclear weapons and use of nuclear weapons as a very high number as an easter egg. He would still be very unlikely to be the aggressor, but if backed into a corner, he would unleash the nukes.
Haha, I was going to say it, but you got this. That is most certainly NOT how stats work. He tried on some math there, but it didn't fit. LOL
*Gets 19/20.. and forgets Halo*
I wish I was not stupid <3