4 ms·

It is saying that 53.4% of the non smoking women that developed cancer in the study were Asian. It is a dumb stat to chart without contextualizing that Asians

• ahepp 3y ago
  My interpretation of the underlying study is that 53.4% of the asian women who developed cancer in the study were nonsmokers, which I believe is subtly different from what you said. But I think what NBC wrote on the graph is pretty unambiguous, that 53.4% of nonsmoking asian women in the study developed cancer. They titled the graph "Lung cancer among nonsmokers, by race" when it should really be "Nonsmoking among Lung Cancers, by race". Or do you think between the title, caption, and data, their chart is presented in a way that can be argued is correct? It doesn't seem like it to me.
  • lupire 3y ago
    It's a lost cause. No one labels charts correctly when presenting complex conditionals breakdowns. It's impossible to cram the proper grammar into the brief titles.
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    Well your interpretation is not correct as you can validate because I posted the source table for you. 53.4% is the share of non smoking women who got lung cancer in the study that were Asian.
    • ahepp 3y ago
      Actually, I did use the table you posted to validate my interpretation was correct before I posted it. Searching for the string "53.4" will direct you to the following: female incident lung cancer cases smoking status total never ever unknown Asian | 296 (7.7) 158 (53.4) 103 (34.8) 35 (11.8)