sed by a white cat, his success rate became 40-60%, averaging 49.6%. The white cat caused a gain in luck! The black cat caused an expansion in luck, to 36-56%. Both results go directly against the old superstition. If black cats are unlucky, then why did the subject's luck increase? One possibility is the corollary superstition that a black cat running away from you is bad luck whereas a black cat approaching you is good. But neither applies here. The cats crossed the subject's path at nearly a right angle. The cat did not move towards the subject or away from him. Secondly, the subject's luck range did not simple shift upward, it expanded. The minimum was lowered and the maximum was raised. The possibility for bad luck was there, but so was the possibility for good luck. This remains unexplained by the superstition. In conclusion, neither cat produced a drastic change in the subject's luck. True, the subject's luck declined slightly, but the change was not great enough to leave the subject's average luck range. There are several objections that believers could raise. It could be said that the cat affects not guessing power but fortune and misfortune in real-life situations. I own a black cat, and although she has crossed my path hundreds of times, I see no degradation in my schoolwork or social life. It could be said that the computer's brain is somehow beyond the cat's influence. I see no difference between an object that could land on one of 2 sides and a stream of electrons that could end in one of 2 states. Another argument is that the stakes must be raised so that there is a disadvantage to losing. This implies the existence of a malevolent being, manifested in cats, whose reason for existence is to deny people fortune. But that is ridiculous. The idea that black cats cause bad luck is false. Cats do not affect the luck of anyone whose path has been crossed....
