Definition Of More Often Than Not

I would say "often" means roughly 50-60% of the time, whereas "more often than not" means 75-95% of the time, and is closer in meaning lớn "almost always."

Is that really so? It doesn"t seem logical (but then, language rarely is).I vì chưng not trust the dictionary I usually use, & I"d like lớn get an opinion of native sầu speakers who at the same time studied in a university.

Bạn đang xem: Definition of more often than not

If it is indeed the case, is it the same with "more rarely than not" & "rarely"? How productive is this Model exactly?

usage time
Improve sầu this question
edited Jul 31 "14 at 9:25

Matt E. Эллен♦
28.1k1414 gold badges9898 silver badges162162 bronze badges
asked Jul 29 "14 at 21:05

22122 silver badges44 bronze badges
| Show 3 more comments

4 Answers 4

Active sầu Oldest Votes
It happens more often that it does not happen.

50.000001% & over

There is no official percentage. It just happens more often than it does not happen. So at least 50.000001%.

As pointed out in the comments, often can be any percentage that implies somewhat frequently - và depends on the circumstances.

Improve sầu this answer
edited Jul 31 "14 at 9:02
answered Jul 29 "14 at 21:08

6,95266 gold badges3434 silver badges5858 bronze badges
| Show 1 more comment
The literal meaning of more often than not is in more than 50% of cases. As this is so obvious và no other precise meaning is well known, you can expect that at least some people will use it in precisely this sense. I guess the need for more often than not arose because almost all other expressions that describe a frequency or probability are relative sầu to lớn some normal or expected frequency or probability & are not related to any fixed percentage.

Xem thêm: Báo Cáo Đối Chiếu Ngân Hàng ( Bank Reconciliation Là Gì, Những Trải Nghiệm Của Tôi: Bank Reconciliation

On the other hand, I am sure a lot of people use the expression figuratively as a longer, more impressive alternative to often, meaning a somewhat higher probability than often.

I won"t try to lớn interpret this, but in the Google corpus, much more often than not - which I think most people will understvà literally - accounts for (not much) less than 1% of uses of more often than not.

Improve this answer
edited Jan 17 "15 at 14:15
answered Jul 30 "14 at 2:44
Add a phản hồi |
The "more often than not" locution is useful for the simple reason it"s a "short và dirty" way of describing an aspect of reality without having khổng lồ resort khổng lồ cold, hard statistics.

Now if a colleague in a math-driven, statistic-oriented work environment asks you how often Joe Public votes in local elections, she expects an accurate statistic from you, and not a "more often than not" answer. In "normal" conversation with your neighbor, however, he might, out of curiosity, ask you

How often bởi vì you wind up washing your car on Saturday?

In answering your neighbor"s question you are permitted to say,

More often than not.

Very rarely would a neighbor say in return,

I don"t agree with you. I"ve been keeping traông chồng of what day of the week you wash your oto for the past two-and-a-half years. In point of fact you have washed your car on Saturday only 45 percent of the time, on Sunday 48 percent of the time, và on various other days of the week the remaining seven percent of the time. Clearly, you do not wash your oto on Saturday more often than not. What a liar you are!

Only severely neurotic, anal-retentive sầu types are going to lớn bust your chops about not being precise about trivial things such as what day of the week you wash your oto. Normal people don"t ask you about the statistical probability that you"ll be washing your car on Saturday this week. If you tell them, "More often than not, I wash my car on Saturday, so chances are good I"ll be doing so this Saturday," then you"ll likely believe sầu them.

As an interesting aside, in American jurisprudence the burden of proof in a criminal case is different from the burden of proof in a civil case. Before the jury deliberates the fate of the accused in a murder trial, for example, they are instructed by the judge lớn find the defendant guilty only if the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge does not, I assure you, say to the jury,

If your màn chơi of doubt is between one percent and 11 percent, then your verdict should be "guilty," but if your cấp độ of doubt is 12 percent or higher, then your verdict should be "not guilty."

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" cannot be decided on a sliding scale. A reasonable doubt is just that: reasonable, & not mathematically precise. An unreasonable doubt in a fairly clear cut murder trial, for example, would be if a juror insists that even though there were several witnesses who swore under oath they saw the defendant take ayên ổn at the victim và shoot hyên ổn six times in the chest from a distance of less than 10 feet, this juror feels strongly that the real shooter, an expert marksman, was perched on the roof of an 80-story building, and he"s the one who killed the victim, not the defendant! This, in spite of there not being one single piece of evidence that there was a shooter other than the defendant. Now that"s unreasonable.

On the other hvà, in a civil trial the burden of proof is quite different. In order for a judge or jury khổng lồ find a defendant guilty, that guilt must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. Despite the inappropriateness of using statistics, even in such an important and formal setting as a civil trial, judges have been known to say,

The preponderance of evidence for either guilt or innocence can be as little as 51 percent to 49 percent in favor of one or the other. As long as you find the evidence is more in favor of guilt than innocence, then you have sầu khổng lồ find the defendant guilty. If on the other h&, as long as you find the evidence is more in favor of innocence than guilt, then you have sầu lớn find the defendant innocent.

We can forgive sầu the judge, I suppose, for giving the impression that two percent more (or less) constitutes a preponderance of evidence toward guilt or innocence. In a sense, the judge"s attaching a number to lớn evidence is unwise since jurors essentially weigh evidence, not on a literal scale but on a mental scale with which, using their own criteria for attaching weight to evidence, they attempt lớn determine guilt or innocence.

As a rhetorician, I must insist that in both a criminal trial và a civil trial, the role of persuasion is--or at least can be--equally important. In the hands of a bright and persuasive sầu lawyer, if a crucial piece of evidence or a line of argument is packaged in such a way that it becomes compelling, moving, & yes, persuasive, that evidence can tip the balance in favor of guilt or innocence.

In other words, the packaging of proof can sometimes have an inordinately large effect on how evidence is processed by a group of supposedly neutral and fact-finding jurors. Statistics are rarely by themselves persuasive sầu. By using a "more often than not"locution at the right time & in the right way can, more often than not, prove sầu to be more powerful than cold and bare statistics.