> Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. It's a "total data

> Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. It's a "total dataset" of the most narrow and small sample size possible. You are being very deceptive here by trying to dismiss the guy's concern over small sample size with "total dataset" as if that compensates for a minuscule sample size. The supreme court ( all nine or so members ) and the oral arguments isn't a sample size worth drawing any objective general conclusions from. You might as well draw general physical conditions of americans based solely on the los angeles lakers. > And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part. You are projecting here. The only one who cherrypicked here is you. The guy responded to your cherrypicked data.