lines of sight $\rho({{\mathbf{\hat n}}})$, one can then easily compute the distribution of projected axis ratios $q$ for a sample of lenses via $$\rho(q|q_1,q_2) = \int \frac{d{{\mathbf{\hat n}}}}{2\pi} \rho({{\mathbf{\hat n}}}) \delta_D(q({{\mathbf{\hat n}}}|q_1,q_2)-q).$$ Figure \[fig:qproj\_dist\] shows the distribution of the projected axis ratio of both quad and double systems for the sample pancake-like (oblate, $T=0.1$) and cigar-like (prolate, $T=0.9$) halos from Figure \[fig:losdist\]. As is to be expected, the distribution for quad systems is considerably skewed towards high ellipticity systems, whereas the distribution for doubles is much flatter. Moreover, the quads distribution is significantly more skewed for prolate (cigar-like) systems than for oblate (pancake-like) halos. Based on Figure \[fig:qproj\_dist\], we have attempted to distill the difference between quads and doubles into a single number. We define the axis ratio $q_{0.75}$ as the axis ratio for which $75\%$ of the lenses have axis ratios $q\leq q_{0.75}$.[^5] The value $q_{0.75}$ for quads and doubles for both sample halos is also shown in Figure \[fig:qproj\_dist\] as lines along the top axis of the plot. It is clear that the projected axis ratio $q_{0.75}$ for doubles and quads is very different, with $\Delta q_{0.75}>0.1$ for both oblate and prolate halos.

Figure \[fig:axis\_ratio\] shows the difference 