> It's still accurate in the sense of proximate cause
Its not, though.
> Each theft event is a singular event composed of one or possibly multiple items being stolen.
Even if you ignore that the arrest rate likely isn't consistent between the two groups, that doesn't make the arrest proportion “accurate in the sense of oroxinate cause” unless you assume also that the organized vs. disorganized arrested parties are responsible for the same number of theft events per individual.
All the proportion of individuals arrested in the theft ring vs. not actually tells you is the proportion if individuals areested. It doesn't tell you the proportion of “theft events” or the proportion of $ valie of theft or anything else.
Its not, though.
> Each theft event is a singular event composed of one or possibly multiple items being stolen.
Even if you ignore that the arrest rate likely isn't consistent between the two groups, that doesn't make the arrest proportion “accurate in the sense of oroxinate cause” unless you assume also that the organized vs. disorganized arrested parties are responsible for the same number of theft events per individual.
All the proportion of individuals arrested in the theft ring vs. not actually tells you is the proportion if individuals areested. It doesn't tell you the proportion of “theft events” or the proportion of $ valie of theft or anything else.