Discussion Main / LiesDamnedLiesAndStatistics

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Needs to be worked on, started by Somfin on Mar 12th 2011 at 7:22:01 AM

I found a statistic where someone adjusts the number of mass-shooting for population to prove that the US isn't that bad and I wanted to use it as an example for bad statistics (basically, the problem is that they are so rare that random chance plays a significant role). But I'm afraid it's too controversial. Your opinion?

I'm unsure about this example:

"It's a bit like the "statistics" on shark shows. "You are more likely to die on the toilet than be eaten by a shark." When you compare how much time you spend around sharks versus how much time you spend around toilets ... really, the toilet has time to plan out its move in advance."

While a not entirely invalid point, it doesn't change the fact that shark attacks are incredibly rare given the amount of attention they receive and that even if you are swimming in the ocean where a shark could theoretically attack the odds aren't that high.

This trope looks more like an essay than a trope.

Before the Swedish election in 2010, a minister said (roughly) "since the last election, 100,000 more people are employed". A member of the opposition said (again, roughly) "since the last election, 100,000 more people are unemployed". As it turns out, they were both correct. The sample size (that is, the population of Sweden) had increased, 200,000 more people were now living in Sweden.

Explanation with bogus numbers: If 5,000,000 people out of 9,000,000 had been employed, it was now 5,100,000 people out of 9,200,000.

Benny Hill asked, "What are the odds of a bomb being on the plane you are taking? One in 10,000. What are the odds of two bombs being on the same plane you are taking? One in 10 million. so if you are traveling somewhere and you want to make sure you are safe, bring a bomb with you; after all, what are the odds of there being two bombs on the same plane?