The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow is full of such examples, including one on the meaning of a Positive HIV test that is 99.9% accurate. Using bayesian statistics, the actual odds of a positive test are less than 10% (a similar example is detailed in chapter two of Agresti's Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis book). Another example (i break the one example per answer but this is essentially the same problem from conditional probability) is from the Simpson trial, where one of Simpson’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, noted that even though Simpson beat his wife, that hardly mattered, because in the United States, four million women are battered every year by their male partners, yet only one in 2,500 is ultimately murdered by her partner (1 in 1000), so, by the 'reasonable doubt' criterion, this is irrelevant. The jury found that argument persuasive, but it’s spurious. The relevant question was what percentage of all battered women who are murdered are killed by their abusers, which ain't 1 in 1000, but rather 9 in 10.