Please help, regarding proportions

[Nikkidt]

Hi there, this is probably a really easy question for you maths people, but for some reason I cannot get my headaround it and I would be so grateful for some help.
It is in relation to a legal compensation claim. It is about apportioning responsibility for someone's medical symptoms to each of three events that have occurred. This is how it goes:

The person had some symptoms which existed before any of the events.

Then there were three events. I need to work out what percentage of current symptoms relate to each event.

Pre-existing symptoms = S

Event 1 added 50% to S so after that she had S+50%

Event 2 added 20% to what she had by that stage so after that she had (S + 50%) + 20%

Event 3 added further 25% so after that she had ((S+50%) + 20%) + 25%

Which is current symptoms= C

So I need to know: what proportion of C is S

Then I can work out the other sums to show how much of C is contributed to by each event

 

[Nikkidt]

Very unclear....

Event 1: 50% of what?
If of S, then new symptoms = 1.5S ?

Event 3: ((S+50%) + 20%) + 25%
That's the same as S + 95% : is that what you mean?

Or do you mean:
Event 1 : S * 1.5 = 1.5S
Event 2 : 1.5S * 1.20 = 1.8S
Event 3 : 1.8S * 1.25 = 2.25S

Maybe I can clarify. I might have done the equation notation wrong.
I'll take out the context of medical symptoms to make it simpler and just put it in words.

A person has a number of nuggets.
Event 1 occurs: In which they are given a further 50% of number of nuggets, to add to what they had.
Event 2 occurs: In which they are then given a further 20% of the nuggets they had after event 1, to add to what they had.
Event 2 occurs: In which they are then given a further 25% of the nuggets they had after event 2, to add to what they had.

The question is, what is the relationship between the starting number of nuggets, and the final number of nuggets they end up with.

Does that help?

 

[Nikkidt]

figured out now

I have figured it out now, it is just an ordinary compund interest calculation at heart, once I put in some example fuiures I was able to work out what it was!

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Maybe I can clarify. I might have done the equation notation wrong.
I'll take out the context of medical symptoms to make it simpler and just put it in words.

A person has a number of nuggets.
Event 1 occurs: In which they are given a further 50% of number of nuggets, to add to what they had.
Event 2 occurs: In which they are then given a further 20% of the nuggets they had after event 1, to add to what they had.
Event 3 occurs: In which they are then given a further 25% of the nuggets they had after event 2, to add to what they had.

The question is, what is the relationship between the starting number of nuggets, and the final number of nuggets they end up with.

Does that help?

Suppose you start with 'N' nuggets and end up (after event 3) with 'F' nuggets then:

F = N * (1+ 0.5)*(1 + 0.2)*(1+0.25)

N/F = 1/[(1+ 0.5)*(1 + 0.2)*(1+0.25)] = 0.746965

 

[Ishuda]

Hi there, this is probably a really easy question for you maths people, but for some reason I cannot get my headaround it and I would be so grateful for some help.
It is in relation to a legal compensation claim. It is about apportioning responsibility for someone's medical symptoms to each of three events that have occurred. This is how it goes:

The person had some symptoms which existed before any of the events.

Then there were three events. I need to work out what percentage of current symptoms relate to each event.

Pre-existing symptoms = S

Event 1 added 50% to S so after that she had S+50%

Event 2 added 20% to what she had by that stage so after that she had (S + 50%) + 20%

Event 3 added further 25% so after that she had ((S+50%) + 20%) + 25%

Which is current symptoms= C

So I need to know: what proportion of C is S

Then I can work out the other sums to show how much of C is contributed to by each event

If this is a real case, talk to a lawyer. In many cases liability does not depend on previous conditions. For example, if Person A has a 'weak heart' and Person B does something to cause a heart attack then, in many jurisdictions, Person B is responsible for the total cost and 'pain & suffering' suffered by Person A. There is no 'discount' because Person A had a weak heart. Of course that stills leaves the legal proof that it was Person B's actions that caused the heart attack.