• • Unknowable and biased statistics: Browne and Keeley write “Any statistic requires that some events somewhere have been defined and accurately identified, but these conditions are often not met” First strategy you can use is finding out how the statistics were acquired. Always ask, “how did the author arrive at the estimate?” (135)
  • Confusing averages: There are different ways to arrive at an average and the use of one may not be conducive to what we are trying to average. When faced with an average ask if it matters whether is is the mean, median, or mode. Keep range and distribution in mind. (ARQ 136)
  • Measurement errors: Ways in which things are measured may be wrong, I would ask in which way was this statistic measured, under what conditions and what was used to determine the measurement. (ARQ 136)
  • Concluding one thing, proving another: Some statistics means to determine one thing but the author uses it to determine another. What stats are needed to prove this conclusion or what can I conclude from these stats, if the author says something different then he/she might be trying to deceive us. (ARQ 138)
  • Deceiving by omitting information: Incomplete statistics. What further info do I need so I can judge the impact of these stats. If the author tries to wow us with big number beware. Keep in mind absolute numbers and percentages, if one or the other is missing, ask of its importance. (ARQ 139)

2. In the following paragraph, identify the inadequacies in the evidence:

Campaigns for national office are getting out of hand. Money is playing a central role in more and more elections. The average winner in a senate race now spends over $8 million on their campaign, while typical presidential candidates spend more than $300 million. It is time for some serious changes, because we cannot simply allow politicians to buy their seats through large expenditures on advertisements. 

I’m thinking that 300 million might be a little high, they used the mean instead of the median of mode.

3. In the following paragraph, identify the inadequacies in the evidence:

The home is becoming a more dangerous place to spend time. The number of home-related injuries is on the rise. In 2010, approximately 2300 children aged 14 and under died from accidents in the home. Also, 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. To make matters worse, even television, a relatively safe household appliance, is becoming dangerous. In fact, 42,000 people are injured by televisions and television stands each year. With so many accidents in the home, perhaps people need to start spending more time outdoors.

What kind of accidents took place in the home? Also if that 2300 children was taken from a national stand point then that is a small number compared to the millions of Americans and does not conclude that spending time at home is dangerous. And I would bargain that the people being bitten by dogs each year are outside of the home and aren’t the owners of the dogs themselves. Dogs tend to guard the home. 42,000 is also a small number compared to the millions in America. I see deception by omitting information. Concluding one thing, proving another. Unknowable, biased statistics.