rekrunner wrote:
"Propaganda" is an interesting choice of words, as both estimates come directly from the study.
"at least 31%" under two assumptions isn't propaganda. It turns into propaganda when
- you skip the assumptions
- you skip the "at least"
- you argue that it even could be less
Naturally you routinely do all of the above.
The article itself states:
- 44% as the actual uncorrected result
- that the real number is likely higher
- that it's at least 31% even under two conservative assumptions.
And no, I am not playing this game with you again for pages and pages, where you argue either with your favorite statement from an un-reviewed preliminary draft or that your favorite table of hypotheses in appendix C outweighs and corrects the paper's actual findings, that are conveniently and traditionally summarized in the abstract already.