Exercise 3: Why "More Numeric" Doesn't Mean "Answers the Question Better" — Possible Solution
=================================================================================================

The classmate's argument assumes objectivity and relevance are the
same thing - that because a number is precisely measured, it must also
be measuring the thing that actually matters for the decision at hand.
The New Coke case shows those are genuinely separate properties.

The 53%-vs-47% taste preference figure was a perfectly objective,
accurately measured quantitative result - there's no reason to doubt
the number itself. But being accurately measured only means the
measurement itself was done correctly; it says nothing about whether
what was measured was actually the right thing to measure for the
decision being made. The number was precise and irrelevant to the
real risk (customer loyalty and emotional attachment), while the
qualitative focus-group signal was less precisely quantifiable but
directly relevant to that real risk.

A genuinely objective process would have weighed both signals by their
relevance to the actual decision, not by which one happened to produce
a cleaner-looking percentage. Treating "numeric" as automatically
"more trustworthy" led Coca-Cola to discount a real, relevant warning
in favor of a real, but ultimately less relevant, number.

ANSWER: Being precisely measured (quantitative) and being relevant to
the actual question at hand are two separate properties - a number can
be perfectly accurate and still be measuring the wrong thing. In the
New Coke case, the taste-test percentage was accurate but answered a
narrow question, while the qualitative focus-group data, though not
expressed numerically, was more directly relevant to the real business
risk. "More numeric" describes precision, not relevance.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This directly separates precision from relevance using the New Coke
case's own real details, correctly identifying the specific flaw in
the classmate's reasoning rather than just disagreeing with it.