The Critical Thinking Blog

How I checked whether the report was accurate was by going on the website which they got their statistics from which was the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). When trying to look at whether 55-65 year olds had a ‘higher proficiency in literacy and numeracy’ than 16-24 year olds, the website did not show me this as I could only look at the differences in ages, not gender. It also showed that out of 39 (39 being the highest) countries, the UK was 24^th in the ranking for reading performance and for mathematics performance, out of 38 (38 being the highest) countries, UK was 20^th. They carried out an interview whereby they claim a total of 166,000 were interviewed in 24 countries, although Wales was not covered/a part of the interview. This is appropriate because it allows for the older age bracket and the younger age bracket to be tested to show evidence toward or against the article headline. The headline is misleading because the OECD website does not show the performance in difference of ages and it also doesn’t state what year the data is collected from. When looking at 2013 (the year the article was published), it didn’t show any data so I had to use my initiative and collect data from the year before (2012). An alternative headline I would change it to would be ‘UK 24^th in ranking for reading performance out of 38 countries’.

Link to article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449481/Education-crisis-Pupils-worse-maths-literacy-grandparents.html

Link to OECD website: https://data.oecd.org/united-kingdom.htm#profile-education

The story claims that, only 1 in 3 Americans are very happy according to the Harris poll. However it can be argued that this headline is misleading because it is based on people’s emotions which are relative and can change at any point, thus making it harder for this research to be reliable. The methodology used was a quantitative online survey that consisted of different questions and statements to test their level of happiness. For example, they were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement; “my relationships with my friends bring me happiness.” However, the limitation to this is that the research was not there to assist them with the survey if they did not understand certain questions or statements, which could lead to misleading answers. Despite this, the sample size of 2,345 U.S adults aged from 18 and above was a large enough sample size to make generalisations about the rest of the target population, thus making the research representative. However, the research does not clarify whether these respondents were chosen at random or was a nonprobability sample, thus is at a high risk of being bias. Nevertheless, by the story comparing the results of 2009 to the results of 2016 it allows the reader to see the comparison in the level of happiness. For example 33% of Americans claimed they were very happy in 2016, whereas in 2009 it was 35%, showing a decline. Thus it is easier to see trends and patterns by using this quantitative data. On the other hand a problem with this story is that it makes assumptions about the reasons why people may feel happy or unhappier. An illustration of this is that they assume that someone’s level of stress and their age are the main factors in determining somebody’s happiness, however does not provide evidence showing this. Thus, lowering the validity of the research since they are assuming what the statistics mean instead of conducting qualitative methods such as interviews to get evidence about the reasons behind this. Overall the headline that 1 in 3 American’s are very happy can be seen as misleading since the definition of happiness is relative and may be interpreted by the respondents differently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/01/happiness-index-only-1-in_n_3354524.html
http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Annual_Happiness_Index_Again_Finds_One-Third_of_Americans_Very_Happy.html

Summary of article

• Demand for minicab drivers to pass language test to obtain license
• Test (writing short essay) would not apply to black cab drivers
• Would put nearly 1/3 of London minicab drivers out of business (Uber)
• Uber lawyers say 33,000 drivers would fail test or not be able to renew license
• TFL licenses 118,000 minicab drivers – they want all applicants for new or renewed private hire license to pass test by 31^st of September
• Uber supports verbal tests but not written exams
• 28% of those currently with a license would lose it over 3 years
• This was based on TFL’s assumption that 40% of people taking the test would fail
• Would unfairly penalize drivers who had sufficient English to pass driving test and read road signs but not pass a written exam
• The lack of complaints about Uber drivers’ written English meant the issue was “the dog that didn’t bark”
• TFL said it would be vital and ensure passenger safety and to raise standards
• TFL originally wanted to apply test only to people from countries where English is not the primary language but this was blocked in court as discriminatory.

 Blog post – comments – are the figures true or problematic?

In this article, numerous percentages and figures are used to confuse the readers. At first glance, any percentage higher than 20% and a number in the tens of thousands makes it sound serious and concerning. A prediction of ‘1/3 of London minicab driver’s’ being put out of business is a sweeping statement with no direct source or evidence mentioned. 28% of 118,000 is in fact 33,000 which Uber have stated correctly as their prediction of people who would fail the test or not be able to renew. While the Guardian have accurately reported that Uber say 33,000 minicab drivers would lose their jobs, no evidence is given to the reader to allow them to determine whether this number is likely to be accurate or not. It then goes on to mention TFL assumed 40% of people taking the test would fail. The varying figures and predictions makes it seem a fairly irrelevant article to have been published. Going on to say there was a ‘lack of complaints about Uber drivers’ written English’ means that there was not a concern in the first place, and so this article was based on no evidence for a need for change.

By Jock Rayment

This article found on the Times website, outlines how the combination of statins, a well-known treatment taken by an estimated 6 million Brits, along with a new “breakthrough” drug named Evolocumab can supposedly reduce the risk of heart attack. The opening paragraph begins by stating the claims from a trial that “people could cut the risk of a heart attack or stroke by a fifth with cholesterol lowering drugs”. This is potentially misleading as readers may assume this is in reference to the newly approved Evolocumab, when in fact it is most likely referring to a cocktail of several different drugs. Additionally, since we are given no further details of this “trial” such as the sample size or even who conducted the pharmaceutical trial, we must take care in how much weight we place on these statistics.

The second set of statistics the article includes is that “levels of “bad” cholesterol fell by 59%” in patients taking the statin-Evolocumab combination. However, it is well known that an individual’s levels of “good” cholesterol are equally, if not more, important in indicating the risk of cardiovascular disease. Since there is no information provided on the drugs’ effect on “good” cholesterol levels, we cannot conclude that this is a positive effect of taking Evolocumab and statins in conjunction. Furthermore, it is stated that this particular finding comes from an international study, which, due to significant disparities in life styles and diets across different cultures, may mean that this statistic is not generalisable to Britain.

It can also be argued that the 1.5% difference found between the placebo condition and those on the drug combination in cutting the risk of heart problems, is not significant enough to be deemed “the most important advancements” in fighting heart disease. Although there is no statistic given of a control group comprised of participants taking neither a placebo or the statin-evolocumab concoction, it a possibility that the placebo effect was enough to reduce the risk of heart problems in patients alone. It is also crucial to note that it took a relatively large sample size of 27500 patients in order for a weak but statistically significant benefit to be found.

Throughout the article, a Professor by the name of Peter Sever, makes several claims about the benefits of this new drug, including the fact that it has done “far and away more than any statin has ever done”. He also concludes that the findings of trials involving the new drug combination is a “huge breakthrough”, adding “new dimensions for patients” suffering from heart disease. It is these hyperbolic phrases that prompted me to do my own research into the clinical background of Professor Peter Sever. Upon further investigation I found that although a highly cited researcher, all of Sever’s past research has been funded by Pharmaceutical companies. This raises concerns surrounding Sever’s motives for such strong endorsement of the drug, as it would be of benefit to the pharmaceutical company to promote the drug, and in Sever’s best interest to appeal to his funders.

Interestingly, in the comments and discussion area at the end of the article, the author of the piece, Mark Porter, points out that lifestyle interventions post-heart attack such as the mediterranean diet, has an effectiveness of preventing 1 in every 18 heart attacks, a statistic far superior to the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Had this statistic been included in the original article, I believe it would have provided a much more balanced and informative argument.

In conclusion I believe the claim that the drug “prevents cardiovascular disease” is hyperbolic and sensationalised, a more appropriate claim would be so say that the combined effect of taking the two drugs (statins and evolocumab) marginally reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease in those with an already existent heart condition.

A recent study has found that more students, in comparison to previous years, are taking time out of school to go on holiday. A report by the BBC has claimed that ‘Term-time holidays accounted for a quarter of unauthorised absences from schools in England’. That being said, the article has already contradicted itself. This is because it goes on later to say that, in fact, term-time holidays accounted for 27% of all missed school “sessions”. Hence the statistics do not correspond to what was said prior, as 27% is not the same as a quarter, 25%. Additionally, the article fails to mention the number of ‘other unauthorised circumstances’ or ‘children arriving late’, adding up to 2,116,710 days missed of school. In comparison, the number of term-time holidays accounted for only 801,980 of absences in 2015/16, which are 1,314,730 absences less. For example, it is stated that ‘there were 2.6m children with at least one unauthorised absence, compared with 2.4m in 2014-15’, yet these figures also include pupils who arrived late for school. Therefore, the statistics do not truly support that the number of term-time holidays is the reason so many students take time out of school.

Furthermore, the article states the areas that have missed school sessions the most due to holidays. This includes Cornwall, Devon and Liverpool. However, these areas notably have the largest population size in comparison to other areas mentioned. This confirms that they would have more pupils not attending school sessions as they have more schools and students in general.

Overall, despite the sample size being largely representative of their selected population, the statistics can be slightly misleading and do not consider the other reasons why children may miss school days.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39380529

This headline starts by stating that the rate of teenage pregnancy has almost halved in the last eight years, therefore I thought this would be a good place for me to start as well. The headline was written from 2015 and states that in this year the rate of conceptions of individuals under the age of 18 was 20,351 and the rate of conceptions in 2007 (eight year’s prior) was 42,988. The independent got their information from the office for national statistics, which is a very reliable source, more specifically from the registration of births and notification of abortions. I went onto the office for national statistics website and looked into the data for both 2015 and 2007 for this study and found that they did in fact match the ones stated by the Independents headline. However, the headline does state that it ‘nearly halved’ when really it dropped by over half being that it went from almost 42,988 to 20,351 (as half of 42,988 is 21,494). It could also be argued that the information coming from the registration of births and notification of abortion doesn’t include dark statistics such as the rare home abortions, births that aren’t registered and unknown miscarriages and therefore isn’t completely reliable.
Despite the reasons mentioned that could argue against this headline, I personally feel that this headline is not misleading as all of the statistics are correct and have been obtained from a reliable source. The headline is informative and gives a brief over view of what the story then moves on to discuss further and in more detail.

Link to article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/teenage-pregnancy-rates-record-low-england-wales-fall-halve-last-seven-years-a7643416.html

This story claims that flats built in London, will be 40% smaller than Travelodge rooms. The headline however does not state how many flats this Involves, and instead implies that it will be all new flats constructed within the capital. The story goes on to explain it is only one block of flats, totalling 254 flats, however even if it included this, the headline would still be false. The wording of the headline suggests that all of the flats will be smaller, although even of the 254, only a small amount of these will be smaller than a Travelodge room. The rooms which are measured at 16sqm, are in fact 42.8% smaller than the size of the average Travelodge room, which is 28sqm, so the data used for this part at least is correct. However, the story states that 95% of the 254 flats would be under 37sqm, but does not state how far under. Even so, the size must be somewhere between 28sqm and 37sqm, and so it is a very small number of flats which in fact conform to the claims of the headline. A quote from one of the buildings architects further confirms this; “of the 254 apartments, only one unit on each floor is 16sqm” – And so the stories headline, which suggests that all flats in London being built will be under the 28sqm size of a Travelodge room, is very much incorrect.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-studio-flats-smaller-40-percent-travelodge-rooms-real-estate-developer-barnet-house-studio-a7654316.html

The story behind this headline is that when given the choice between either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becoming president, more young Americans wanted a giant meteor to strike Earth on 8^th November. The method used to collect this data was a poll conducted by UMass Lowell’s Centre of Public Opinion and Odyssey Millenials (UML). When exploring UML’s methods further I found that the poll asked millennials about their attitudes and opinions on the election and serious issues such as race, immigration etc. which was obtained through telephone interviews with a sample of 1,026 adults in New Hampshire. The method of a poll through telephone interviews and the sample size was appropriate, however it was all based in one area which may create unrepresentative data of the whole of American millennials. In the Guardian article, the person who ran the study stated that they obviously didn’t think that these results were serious, but the fact that one in four young people picked ‘Giant Meteor’ shows something about the political disaffection the American youth are feeling. Therefore, this story’s purpose is deeper than the headline itself and some people may take the headline seriously, making it a little misleading.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/giant-meteor-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-millennials-us-election-2016-a7368476.html

Firstly “relationship” is not defined in the headline. Relationships could mean sexual, familial or Platonical. Different problems are likely to arrive when it comes to different types of relationships, for example, problems like AIDs are likely to affect a sexual relationship but not a relationship with platonic love for friends.
Some evidence was given by Relate, Relationships Scotland and Marriage Care who surveyed over 5000 people in the UK. Although the sample size is an intrinsically large so there are likely to be a large variety of legitimate responses, it is not representative relatively to the population of the UK. Another problem is that the article itself doesn’t specify the location of the various respondents. This is an issue because economic concerns in relationships are bound to depend on the socio-economic status of where the couples live. For example, wealthy respondents are more likely to live in wealthy areas so money wouldn’t be the primary source of conflict in the relationship.
The organisation specialises in asking people about personal areas of their lives such as family life and sex therefore people who answered the survey are more likely to have strong opinions on these topics. The population makes sense because respondents are likely to have a grasp on the details of their relationships because as it’s an aspect of life that means a lot to them, meaning they should have a good idea of their own personal opinions of relationships.
The article features a quotation about how arguments happen and although they mentioned the speaker (Bloomfield) and her role within the cooperation (which adds legitimacy to what she’s saying due to her experise and experience), there is no source for the original interview. This is problematic because it undermines the legitimacy of what she said as there is no evidence she is the one who said it.
The percentages of the ranges of problems encountered add up to 88% (26+15+12+12+12+11=88), the final category is not included in the report. If the category were “not sure” then the options would have been reliable because the respondent wouldn’t have been forced to give a reason for relationship problems, making results accurate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/biggest-strain-relationships-uk-relate-a7642151.html