<http://whatho.in/2013/plausibility-versus-probability/> refers to pp 155-156 of 533 of *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman. I'll use one of Kahneman's other questions from p 156:

> 
> 1. A massive flood somewhere in North America next year, in which
>  more than 1,000 people drown
> 2. An earthquake in California sometime next year, causing a flood
>  in which more than 1,000 people drown
> 
> 
> The California earthquake scenario is more plausible than the North
>  America scenario, although its probability is certainly smaller. As
>  expected, probability judgments were higher for the richer and more
>  entdetailed scenario, contrary to logic. This is a trap for forecasters and
>  **their clients: adding detail to scenarios makes them** $\color{darkred}{more \, persuasive}$, but
>  **less likely to come true**.
> 
> 
> 

Since Pr('adding detail') means adding more events to the intersection in $\Pr(\cap A\_j)$,  

 and $Pr(A \wedge B) \le Pr(X)$ where X is either A or B, thus:

$\Pr(\cap\_{j \le 1} A\_j) \le \Pr(\cap\_{j \le 1} A\_{j+1})$, or in words, '**adding detail to scenarios makes them...less likely to come true**' (♦). 

Yet how does this make them $\color{darkred}{more \, persuasive}$ or more plausible? Doesn't (♦) prove 'less probable'? What did I miss in the definition of [plausible](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/plausible) which contains the word `probable`?