SOLUTION TO THIS WEEK'S RIDDLE
To begin, we're inclined to think that based on her description (outspoken, social justice, protests, etc) that she is of course active in, in this case, the feminist movement.
Unfortunately, that is not accurate. In fact, it is impossible for it to be more probable to be that she is both a bank teller and active in the feminist movement. Take a look at the Venn diagram below:
Let's imagine that the left circle contains all those people who are bank tellers, and the one on the right contains all the people who are active in the feminist movement. Being both means that you are in the intersection of these two circles; that you meet both conditions or characteristics.
As illustrated by this diagram, it is impossible for this intersection to be LARGER than either of the single condition circles. This is given as P(AnB)<= P(A) and P(AnB)<= P(B)(at its largest, it may be AS LARGE as on of the circles, if on circle was a subset of the other). This means that it is more probable that she is just a bank teller, or that she is just active in the feminist movement.
Our assumptions that a set of conditions is more probable than a single general one is called the Conjunction Fallacy, and this famous example originated with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. We think that option 2 is more representative of Linda, so we assume it's more probable. Beware of conjunction fallacies in your everyday life!
Answer:
IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT SHE IS ONLY A BANK TELLER!