Tag Archives: reading

Reading Reflection #10: Statistics and Draft Annotation

Posted on by
Reply

 

    • 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.

Reading Reflection #9: Evidence Part 2

Posted on by
Reply
  1. The scientific method is a method of doing research that requires you to take certain steps in formulating a theory. The steps include making an observation or asking a question, coming up with a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis with an experiment, and if the hypothesis holds up, you analyze the data and draw a conclusion, then voice your results. If the hypothesis does not hold up you should go back to step one, ask another question. Replication is a key characteristic of the scientific method, the fact that the experiment can be done again with the same results makes this evidence valuable. Whats more is, in conducting the experiments, researchers often use different variables to control the experiments in a way that makes the findings more verifiable and precise. Which brings me to the third characteristic, precision; researchers use more precise language rather than ambiguous language in making their claim, unlike the former evidence we read about.
  1. Surveys can be unreliable for a number of reasons, dishonesty in answering the questions, ambiguous wordings of questions, people not taking there time in the survey and just answering randomly, and many surveys are biased in their questioning. Some things you can look for in finding if a survey is reliable is the length of the survey, how the survey is conducted/the procedures behind it, the context, and how the questions are worded.
  2. The pros of research studies are in my answer to number one about scientific method. But some cons of research study are that results are not proof of a conclusion, they are only support for conclusions, (ARQ p.104). Another con is that some research studies have not been replicated yet and so are of less quality than ones that have been replicated again and again. Some studies can not be replicated and were false in their findings or their findings were, as Browne and Keeley put it; “greatly exaggerated.” (ARQ p.104)
  1. What is the quality of the source of the report? Is the article that contains the study peer reviewed? Another question to ask is how recently was the research conducted and could the findings have changed over time? Look for when the study was published whether at the same time your source was published or before, (you can find the year of a study either in the in-text citation within your souces article or in their work cited page). And one more, Is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking? In the sources reasonings, you can find if he/she is using evidence that is bound to his/her beliefs or if the reasonings are more open to all sides of an issue.
  2. A rival cause is an alternative causation to an event. You should start looking for one when the communicator is attempting to assert the cause of something. There are key phrases that should alert you to the possibility of a rival cause; including but not limited to: Leads to, influences, is linked to, and increases the likelihood. Some questions to ask yourself when faced with “causal thinking” (ARQ p.121) are: Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence? What else might have caused this act or these findings? If I looked at the event from another point of view, what might I see as important causes? If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense? (ARQ p.122)
  3. correlations are 2 or more events that seem to be connected in some way and can look like a cause to eachother. According to google, (because I couldn’t put into words what a cause is), a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. The cause is more difficult to demonstrate then the correlation because there are so many combinations of events that can influences another event that the string of events that happen in order for another event to happen is often overlooked in favor of a general cause.
  4. Conclusion: Increased amounts of germs and bacteria on college campuses cause higher rates of illness in college students.
    Reason/cause: College students are less likely to sanitize living areas and common areas on campus, which in turn creates excessive germs on surfaces and in the air leading to more sickness in students
    Rival (other possible) causes: College students could contract the illness elsewhere and spread it even while cleaning living areas on campus. Or, there could be a pandemic and the school hasn’t closed down events in light of it and the rate of students being ill increases.
    Evaluation (How strong is the original argument? What’s missing?): Not very strong. Where does the communicator get this information? How does he/she know that students aren’t cleaning their living areas? How does she know there is an excess of germs on surfaces and in the air? The communicator seems to be pulling causes out of the air when there are many other possibilities of why students are getting sick. His/her evaluation of what is making the students sick is “a cause, not the cause.” (ARQ p.123)