If person (x) goes to state-sponsored school (y), where he is caused by the circumstance, teachers and pupils (all z) to take up an activity such as smoking (w); is x justified in blaming w on y, or should z be held accountable?
if x=w, then w*2=x+y|x+z therefore y=z
obviously y cannot = z, since y has no influence on x aside from its' architecture.
z has a relevant influence on x, as does the reputation of y, which is direct relation of z|y.
so x|w = z/y|w which is inconclusive since we do not have a real number of what percentage is z|w
let's use q as q=% of z|w
but that is also inconclusive since it is unrealistic to say that x knows 100% of q.
let's assume that x knows 1/3 of q, since on a psychological level we already know that x is influenced by his peers that he is more than likely an intro/extroverted maladaptive personality...adaptives aren't wont to succumb to smoking for some reason...maybe it's because they have more confidence in themselves.
so 1/3|q=f now.
let's place 1,000 students and staff at the school.
assume that a whopping 50% smoke.
if 1/3q=f, then f=166|z
that makes x|w=16.6% of z
x has succumbed to the peer pressures of 16.6% of z, to commit to a death sentence which 83.4% of z had nothing to say about.
conclusion: x=w is due to x=x and nothing more.