[22c]

Nobody is saying that there are no random assaults, they are saying that without data on what percentage of the attacks were completely random, we can't make assumptions that an increase in total number of assaults equates to an increase in total number of random assaults.

[cscurmudgeon]

> Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities.

You made the argument that attacks are targeted using an analogy without having data.

[22c]

I am not arguing that the increase of assaults on the BART are targeted. I am arguing that that without data to prove it, we are making an assumption by saying that an increase in the number of assaults on the BART means that you are more likely to be a victim of assault as a random commuter on the BART. I used an analogy of Chicago shootings because these numbers are well understood, I suspect the BART numbers are not as well understood (most of what either of us can find are anecdotes).

The logical fallacy here is the fallacy of composition. We've only been given the statistics as they relate to ALL riders of the BART (of which "random commuters" only comprise some portion of ALL riders of the BART). We can't draw conclusions about the likelihood of assault against commuters based on this data alone.