In context, it seems heavily implied that we’re supposed to judge the likelihood of Linda’s being a feminist bank teller relative to that of the background population.
Sorry, your nitpick seems predicated on an incredibly uncharitable reading of the problem. @anon50609448’s nitpick is more on point, IMO.
But beyond the problem of interpretation, your nitpick seems to give intuitively strange results. It seems like it prevents us from making any predictions about Linda’s behavior – whatever she does is what she does with no action being more probable than any other. But again, in context it seems intuitively more likely that she might eat breakfast and then commute to work than to put on a matador costume and bait neighborhood dogs with a red cape.
Humans are theoretically capable of undertaking many actions that they essentially have never and never will actually undertake – as a matter of fact, human behavior is heavily constrained, and our cognition in general relies on these constraints to make sense of the behavior of other human beings in general.
Demanding that people treat the behavior and/or identity of a particular human being (even in a hypothetical) as not being subject to probabilities for some obscure technical reason is contrary to human nature and all useful forms of reasoning about those topics.
