On the first point, ok sure - it may be the case that most aren’t but one is. So… what’s the reader supposed to take away from that? What’s the problem we’re lo

On the first point, ok sure - it may be the case that most aren’t but one is. So… what’s the reader supposed to take away from that? What’s the problem we’re looking at here - malpractice or corruption? Just both but maybe one more than the other? Seems like bad writing to me. Second point - ok, great. Let’s actually structure the article around that. “We think that cuts in statistical departments, coupled with lower and more complicated survey engagement, have made it harder to rely on the data those departments produce”. Great, nice, coherent argument. I’m totally not trying to get at you, I just think TFA did a pretty bad job of explaining the problem it’s trying to highlight.