2 ms·

Technically your point is true, but I find these types of gotchas in bad faith. A more fair comparison to this statement would be ">90% of injured car passenger

Technically your point is true, but I find these types of gotchas in bad faith. A more fair comparison to this statement would be ">90% of injured car passengers were not wearing seat belts". The author was trying to stress the importance of wearing a life jacket, I don't think they need to get into statistical robustness in their summary paragraph for something that is so _obviously_ correct. The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do.

robryk 4y ago
> The author was trying to stress the importance of wearing a life jacket, I don't think they need to get into statistical robustness in their summary paragraph for something that is so _obviously_ correct. Then don't provide statistics and just state that it's obviously correct. If doing so is less convincing, then it means that the statement _was_ misleading. > The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do. I think they believe the conclusion is true and are intentionally saying whatever they can to make people think it's true, regardless of whether the reasoning they imply is correct. E: So, in my estimation they are intentionally misleading in the area of valid arguments and not in the area of water safety.