Well, 5% said "Something else," so the most charitable reading already puts us at 65% being able to afford it. But the way the question is worded leaves a lot

Well, 5% said "Something else," so the most charitable reading already puts us at 65% being able to afford it. But the way the question is worded leaves a lot of fuzzy room around the edges. For instance, a financially illiterate person may elect to put it on credit despite having enough liquid wealth not to need to (to get the airline points perhaps?) A shrewd investor may be able to cover it with a personal loan or by borrowing from family with a favorable rate that is lower than the expected return on their investments. The question asks which best describes what you would do in an emergency and only invokes $1000 as an arbitrary example. Some respondents may simply be confused or pedantic in their response. Additional bias can be injected when this number is re-reported by third parties, I've seen it reported as "X% of Americans..." "...Don't have $1000" "...Can't afford $1000 expense" "...Don't have $1000 in savings" "...Couldn't come up with $1000 in an emergency" And several other hyperbolic variations.