[sujeetsr]

The second slide says "If 8 out 10 (or 80%) businesses fail after the first year, the remaining 2 (or 20%) would probably not survive to see their fifth year" - how does this follow? The 'myth' only talks about the first year of the business, and doesn't say that 80% of businesses fail every year.

[shoyer]

Indeed, this is a complete straw-man argument. Obviously, the longer a business has been around, the less likely it is to fail -- which is exactly what the article itself points out on slide 9.

[CiPHPerCoder]

The argument sounds like it's based on a geometric expansion of 80% failure rate for each year.

    (1.0 - 0.8)^5 = (0.2)^5 = 0.00032

That would mean that in 5 years, 99.968% of business would fail.

Clearly that's a fallacy; an 80% failure rate in the first year does not imply an 80% failure rate in subsequent years.

[theothermkn]

It assumes that "80%/year" failure rate implies something like exponential decay. In this model of business, they behave something like particles decaying; the business environment might be treacherous enough that failures are due to factors that are essentially random and unmanageable.

While others (and you) have pointed to the deficiencies of this model, or at least to its assumptions, it is not fallacious, per se. The presence of other models--for example, that the first year is the most treacherous because the new owner lacks experience--does not make the current model, nor conclusions drawn from it, fallacious. Indeed, the implied size of the population, "all businesses," is a warrant for some pretty strong claims. Additionally, treating a saying as data, rather than respecting the context in and modality with which it is offered is probably fallacious in itself.

So, quoth the Bard, "If you're wondering how he eats and breathes/and other science facts/la la la/repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,"/"you should really just relax!" :D

[raverbashing]

No, whenever this is said "80% don't survive the first year" it's specific to the first year. Infant mortality basically

[theothermkn]

Half of all Carbon 14 decays in 5,730 years. So, we're not saying anything about the next 5,730?

Language doesn't work like code. Many interpretations can be sustained by a given text.

[livingparadox]

The statement "Half of all Carbon 14 decays in 5,730 years" does not say anything about the decay in years after that.

Half lives on the other hand are defined as being a re-occurring phenomenon, such that it _does_ say something about future years.

Language does not work like code, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't have a clear and defined meaning. If it couldn't, language would be useless as a communication method.

[arcticfox]

Exactly, your first sentence isn't saying anything at all about the next 5730. Without outside knowledge of exponential decay, there's zero reason to imply anything about the next 5730.

If you instead say "the half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years" then you would be saying something about the next 5730 as well.

The English of "8 out of 10 businesses fail in their first year." is completely unambiguous.

[raverbashing]

Why would you assume that company survival follow an exponential decay in the first place?

This is obviously not the case