Exercise 2: Reframing "95% Success Rate" Into Loss-Oriented Language — Possible Solution
===========================================================================================

A 95% success rate means the remaining 100% - 95% = 5% of cases are
NOT successes - a failure rate of 5%.

Loss-oriented reframing: "New policy has a 5% failure rate."

Both statements describe the exact same real underlying number - out
of every 100 cases, 95 succeed and 5 fail, regardless of which framing
is used. Nothing about the actual policy's real performance changes
between the two versions.

Whether the two versions feel different is a personal reflection with
no single correct answer, but the honest, expected pattern - matching
the chapter's own real Asian disease and ground beef findings - is
that "95% success rate" tends to sound considerably more reassuring
and positive than "5% failure rate," even though a careful reader
recognizes they describe the identical real outcome. If a reader
notices their own gut reaction shifting between the two framings, that
shift itself is direct, personal evidence of the framing effect
described in this chapter operating on their own judgment in real
time.

ANSWER: "95% success rate" reframed in loss-oriented language becomes
"5% failure rate" - the same real number (100% - 95% = 5%) expressed
from the opposite direction. Most people report the "95% success"
framing feeling notably more reassuring than the mathematically
identical "5% failure" framing, which is itself a direct, personal
demonstration of the same effect Tversky and Kahneman's real study
documented.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly performs the reframing with the right arithmetic and
connects the reader's own likely reaction directly back to the
chapter's own documented real findings.