This Consortium News article is a shining example of how to mislead people with math by baking in nonsensical assumptions. Examples:
(link to article in case I get blocked: archive.is/kVORq)
(link to article in case I get blocked: archive.is/kVORq)
One - repeatedly constraining the time window examined to the ten week period prior to the election. This excludes a portion of the general election campaign as well as the entire primary season.
(Also, since when are there 194 weeks in two years?)
(Also, since when are there 194 weeks in two years?)
Two - introducing a general statistic and applying it exclusively to Internet Research Agency content. For example, this 10% figure applies to everything competing with the IRA content just as much as it applies to the IRA material.
Three - comparisons that don't actually provide evidence to support the point being made. The presence of a greater volume in 2017 does not provide any information on the effectiveness of the material posted in 2016.
Four - the article is riddled with basic arithmetic mistakes. Four thousandths is .004, not .0004, and neither of those values results in a 23000:1 ratio (250:1 or 2500:1, respectively, would be correct).
(The last point isn't an example of a nonsensical assumption, it's more the icing on the cake, which was probably baked in a world where the value of pi has been adjusted to 5 to support someone's narrative.)
Someone who isn't blocked by @aaronjmate should probably pass along to him that the article is riddled with basic math mistakes. Consortium News should think about hiring some of the kids from "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" to fact check their journalism.
