Final answer:
Linda is more likely to be a bank teller and a feminist activist due to the representativeness heuristic, but this also exemplifies the conjunction fallacy, mistakenly assuming more specific conditions are more probable than a general one.
Step-by-step explanation:
Linda, being a 31-year-old single, outspoken philosophy major who is deeply concerned with social justice issues, is more likely to be a bank teller and activist in the feminist movement, because of the representativeness heuristic. The representativeness heuristic is a cognitive bias where a person is categorized based on how similar they are to the typical member of a category. Given Linda's interests and background, it seems more representative of her character to be both a bank teller and involved in activism, specifically related to feminist causes, which align with her concerns about social justice.
However, this is also an example of the conjunction fallacy, where people assume that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one. In Linda's case, while it may seem more detailed and therefore more likely that she is a feminist activist due to her interests, statistically, it is less probable for her to be a bank teller and a feminist activist than simply a bank teller. This fallacy occurs because the added detail makes the option seem more plausible, in spite of lower overall likelihood.