Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2017
At the top of page 7 of the article by Kaiserman in the March 2017 issue of Legal Theory, two equations are reversed. The sentence containing these equations should read as follows:
Suppose for the sake of argument that P(c │ d ˄ b) = 0.9 and P(c │ r ˄ b) = 0.2; then it follows from Causal Contribution that f(D, [R, D]→C)b ≈ 0.82 and f(R, [R, D]→C)b ≈ 0.18.
At the top of page 7 of the article by Kaiserman in the March 2017 issue of Legal Theory, two equations are reversed. The sentence containing these equations should read as follows:
Suppose for the sake of argument that P(c │ d ˄ b) = 0.9 and P(c │ r ˄ b) = 0.2; then it follows from Causal Contribution that f(D, [R, D]→C) b ≈ 0.82 and f(R, [R, D]→C) b ≈ 0.18.
You have
Access
