There is so much context missing here it is crazy.
This is such a shameless use of manipulative statistics, it would only convince the dumbest of people of its argument.
I can’t tell if your question is a poorly veiled critique of my comment, or if you genuinely don’t see the presentation of data in the post. The image literally has a grouping of data points conveying a narrative; that’s statistics. A collection of quantitative data. Just because its bad statistics doesn’t mean it isn’t.
There is so much context missing here it is crazy. This is such a shameless use of manipulative statistics, it would only convince the dumbest of people of its argument.
What do you think a ‘statistic’ is?
I can’t tell if your question is a poorly veiled critique of my comment, or if you genuinely don’t see the presentation of data in the post. The image literally has a grouping of data points conveying a narrative; that’s statistics. A collection of quantitative data. Just because its bad statistics doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Okay, I’ll bite, what do you think is missing or how could this information be made to be accurate?