>And it keeps going like that for the entire paper. I smell experiment design hacking. This sort of thing is exactly what pops up in my mind as well. I think t

>And it keeps going like that for the entire paper. I smell experiment design hacking. This sort of thing is exactly what pops up in my mind as well. I think they just looked at complete set of data, which might have shown that there is low-to-moderate correlation (assuming most people only use laptops when there is a part of course that is completely irrelevant/boring/already known); once they dropped the most significant use-case, all was left is the butt-in-seat users. Also, I don't know why they never produce figures of a scatter plot for the data they are analyzing. A simple grade vs laptop time (academic, non-academic, total) figure would explain the results so much better than the raw tables. Maybe I'm just used to other kind of articles though. P.S. There is also a really funny correlation in table 3, showing negative grade influence from playing games, where table 1 has 0 minutes spent for that across the board.