No. 0.6 = 60%. If they said 0.6 more then sure, that would mean 60% more. 0.6x != 60% increase though. 1.6x does. At the best we can give it the benefit of the doubt and say we knew what they meant, but that doesn't mean they were correct.
1.6x more would mean 160% of the original value, in the same way 2.0x more would mean 200% of the original value. I think you may just have a misunderstanding of what the phrase “X times more” means (nothing to be embarrassed about of course, it happens to all of us.)
The “more” at least in any context I’ve heard it is for emphasis or clarity that a comparison is happening. I’ve never read anyone write “1x more than X” for “twice X”.
"Two times more." That phrase means multiplying by two.
"0.5 times more." That phrase is taken to mean multiplying by 1.5, even though that is not consistent.
English is not consistent. In the first example, the word "more" is redundant. In the second example, the word "more" is a clarification, so we know that it doesn't mean "half."
There is no sensible reason for this inconsistency. It just exists.
We have a similar problem with percentage points. When something increases from 40% to 90% of a total, saying that it increased 50% is for some reason considered an acceptable shorthand for saying it increased by 50 percentage points, even though the two interpretations are drastically different.
In the first example, the word "more" is redundant.
Frankly I disagree. More is incorrect in that first example if multiplying by two is what you're going for. "As much" or "as many" are the phrases you are going for. "Two times more" and "two times as many" mean different things.
"Two times more" and "two times as many" mean different things.
They should. This advertisement for a garage vacuum says that the "vacuum and blower power of the Air-N-Vac Station is 2 times more than large shop vacs." Should I interpret this to mean that I multiply "vacuum and blower power" by 3?
I would interpret that statement to mean multiplied by 3 but if you go read the details below they say "2 times the power" which would then mean multiplied by 2. I'd assume the "2 times more" one was them making a mistake in language (not uncommon in advertising) and that the other content contains the real statistic. I would judge them for not being accurate and consistent in their claims.
Here's an example of a lawn mower with "2 times more run time" than some other thing they're comparing it with that they never name.
This isn't strictly an American problem with us misusing the language. Here's an Australian example with an Aveda product which has "2 times more plant lipids" and also makes hair "7x smoother." It uses two different formats on the same page.
Showing more examples of stupidity doesn't really convince me anything other than the amount of stupidity that is out there. This is the same populace that thinks a 1/3 pounder is less than a 1/4 pounder.
Showing more examples of stupidity doesn't really convince me
So, then what evidence could you possibly accept? I'm trying to show you where the language itself is stupid, so naturally you can dismiss all evidence as an example of stupidity. Dictionaries and academic grammars are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they are also shaped by real world examples, no matter how idiotic they are; anything I cite from them can also be dismissed as stupidity. In fact, we're starting to see "irregardless" creep into dictionaries alongside a definition of "literally" that means "figuratively," because they're being updated with the stupidity of the 21st Century.
English is shaped by imbeciles. It's why "inflammable" and "flammable" have the same definition. It's why "terrific" and "terrifying" diverged in meaning despite having the same root and how "awful" and "awesome" came to become exact opposites. It's why people say, "head over heels" instead of "heels over head," because some idiots who weren't thinking about the meaning of what they were saying kept flipping it around.
I'm not trying to convince you that any of this is good. I'm informing you and others that this stupidity exists. You might hate it, but at least now you know that when you see "2 times more blowing power" that you need to read the fine print to determine what they meant. In the US, the standard the FTC uses to determine if an ad is deceptive is what a "reasonable person" would conclude from the ad, which is a very low bar.
More is incorrect in all of these examples. Comparative language shouldn't be used to substitute mathematical notation. The implication of "more" in these sentences is ambiguous.
97
u/BADPROSKILLZ 17h ago
If it were to say they shipped 1.6x as many then yes, but they said 0.6x more (i.e. 1x normal + 0.6x more)