> Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices? Because that's the only part that I quo

> Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices? Because that's the only part that I quoted - go read the academic article yourself if you want the full analysis. Let's just do the p-value comparison of upper-class men to upper-class women for you just to settle this. The null-hypothesis is that both categories are equally interviewed. Total of 18 people interview (13 of 80 men, 3 of 79 women). If all null-hypothesis is true, the 16 interviews would be randomly distributed into the men and women categories. The chance of getting at least 13 men would then be sum_(i=13)^16 (16 choose i) * (80/159)^i * (79/159)^(16-i) which equals p = 0.011. So much for malevolent omission!