It looks like I need your help.
In a webnews report by Sky News about the "Big Freeze" in the UK published early this afternoon, "Drivers [are] Urged To Take Care". At one point, the report states that "Icy roads and travel disruption also reportedly caused a 320% increase in staff absence."
Now I'm not a math whizz, but even I know that there must be something wrong with that percentage figure. Can anyone help?
Thanks muchly. Take care on those icy roads... -- and share your insights into these weird mathematics with me, please! :)
(Ah, now, this is not what my present view looks like. I took this picture three years ago, during a short break in the hilly country south-east of Berne, to recover from a traumatic experience.)
9 comments:
Example:
Normal absences 5 per hundred.
100% increase =10 per hundred
200% increase =15 per hundred
300% increase =20 per hundred
20% increase =1 per hundred
A 320% increase is a move from 5 per hundred to 21 per hundred.
Right-oh. Thanks a lot for this one, whoever you are. :)
I said I wasn't a math whizz. Seems I'm even worse than I thought, because now I see what the result is, I think even I should have arrived at the solution... ;)
Well the way I see it is that if absenteeism averages, say, 1 day per person in a normal January, then this time absenteeism was 3.2 days. Or if the average employee is late (also counted as absenteeism) by 10 minutes, 5 times in an average January, then this time the absenteeism (for late arrival) will be 32 minutes.
Luv
c-
Dear M.
I do know that England had ice and snow yesterday or the day before, but I can't help you with the math question. I used to hate those weird ones where you had to explain how many drops came out of a tap if there was a leak in the wall etc., in other words, I can't figure it out either. Have a good weekend
I.
Sounds pretty odd to me too, M. If I find out more, I'll get back to you later.
B.
So did you get an answer??
(if there's usually 10% absenteeism, 30% would be a 300% increase, right?)
:-)
S.R.
Thank you, everyone, for your comments and contributions. I can now see exactly where I went wrong. Tried to harness the horse from the wrong end, so to speak, thinking the 100% referred to the number of staff. C'est logique, non?
Have a great weekend, everyone! :)
Quite correct. Three and a bit times as much as usual.
Icy hug
J.
Dear J
Your comment must be the best and most succinct of them all. Thank you. Of course, your "quite correct" refers to my original question, not my previous comment.
Thank you, all!
M.
Post a Comment