There's nothing the least bit mathematically fallacious about the line you quote: it's just stating the results of a survey. You are critiquing something that h

There's nothing the least bit mathematically fallacious about the line you quote: it's just stating the results of a survey. You are critiquing something that has to occur after that point. The very next line from the source you're quoting: > After some more mathematical shenanigans, this is extrapolated to imply that Chinese mainlanders buy 33% of the Vancouver real estate market. I.e. "there's more that I'm not talking about because I already think the first step is so inaccurate that it doesn't matter what's next". Which seems more likely? (A) that the above snarkily referred to what was done in the article, or (B) that the above referred to a mathematical fallacy that is otherwise entirely absent from anything anyone here is talking about until you showed up. Even if the top poster were saying what you suggest, how were they supposed to get 33% out of 9/77 = 11%? Your suggested error would give 11% instead.