The article was relatively short. Perhaps you could expand (or follow it up) with some consideration of how to spot the ecological fallacy and how to avoid it?

The article was relatively short. Perhaps you could expand (or follow it up) with some consideration of how to spot the ecological fallacy and how to avoid it? Also you don't go into much detail explaining the smoking cancer example. Is it the case that the data turned out to be right 'in spite of' the fallacy or was it a case where the data was immune to the problems of other cases?