The Critical Thinking Blog

New research on Brits and their feelings on a new bank holiday after the clock goes forward. They were asked about their feelings about the biannual change in time. And 60% of Brits get confused by this, they do not know which watches changes automatically and which does not, or if the time is changing an hour forward or backward. That is why they want a bank holiday after the time change so they can recover from this. When losing an hour 88% admits that they lose even more sleep, some admits to lose up to 4 hours of sleep due to the result of the clock change. A survey done by global sleep company Casper found that 48% of respondents experience a feeling of body clock confusion as a result of the national clock change.

The article does not say how many people completed the survey, and neither does it say anything on what types of questions they asked. There is no other links on the site to where we can the information from those who conducted the survey. If they asked in the survey if people would have one more bank holiday, most of the population would probably have one or two extra bank holidays. I think that a majority of people would really like having a bank holiday on a Monday, but if it is because of the clock goes forward does not make sense. And there is no more information about this survey or their findings other than what is presented to us in the article, so for all I know this might be made up numbers.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/clocks-go-forward-daylight-saving-british-summer-time-monday-off-public-holiday-british-people-want-a7647901.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/fast-food-workers-face-rampant-sexual-harassment-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

The first thing in the article that raises questions is the sample used for the survey, it was an online survey and so automatically a sample bias is presented of those who would complete an online survey as opposed to those who might be too busy/not caring enough (as they have not experienced sexual harassment and thus perhaps do not feel it relates to them) to complete the survey. 1200 respondents is a good number however a higher number would have been better and including male employees would have been a good additional step in the research, also specifying the ethnicity of respondents would have allowed the research to perhaps pierce the veil of whether or not sexual harassment is racially motivated in different areas (e.g. southern USA). The article groups together less intense forms of sexual harassment like jokes with intense forms of sexual harassment such as rape in a way that simultaneously shocks the reader by associating this high figure with what they perceive to be a greater threat then the reality of it is (though derogatory jokes are still bad) thus it is slightly misleading (though derogatory jokes are still sexual harassment) and the article should clarify the different categories of sexual harassment better. The article also failed to mention perhaps the most shocking statistic revealed by the research which is that 1 in 8 women in fast food faces sexual harassment at work but feels trapped and unable to leave due to being unable to afford to quit their job so the article is lacking to fulfill it’s educational purpose.

“Fox News Poll: Confidence in military remains high, in media low”

This is the headline of an article that was published by Dana Blanton for Fox News on the 27^th February 2017. The article is based on data that was collected from a sample of 1,013 registered voters who were then interviewed by telephone. The sampling technique that was used was that of a random sample of 433 landline telephone numbers and 580 cellphone numbers. These were selected at random with the number of phone numbers selected being proportionate to the population size of each state. The poll also described how the results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percent. Due to the fact that the data is based on results that were collected using a random sample of registered voters proportionate to the number of registered voters in those states, the results are likely to be highly representative of the rest of the population. Despite this, the results that the article is based on are questionable due to the nature of the wording of the survey questions. The respondents were told by the interviewers “I’m going to read you a list of people and institutions. Please tell me how much confidence you have in each”. However, the survey does not define what is meant by the word “confidence”. It is unclear if this should be interpreted by the respondents as if they have confidence in that institution to make good decisions, confidence in the power of those institutions or if they trust those institutions. Therefore, the results of this survey are likely to lack validity. Furthermore, the headline of the article is not directly supported by the results of the survey. The survey showed that 96% of the respondents responded that they had “A great deal” or “some” confidence in the military (with 67% responding that they had “a great deal” of confidence in the media). However, 44% of the respondents also answered that they had either “A great deal” or “some” confidence in the media. Thus, this does not indicate that “confidence in the military remains high, in media low” as the headline describes. Instead this indicates that confidence in the military is substantially higher than that in the media. Therefore, this is not evidence that confidence in the military is high and that confidence in the media is low. Moreover, the pre-defined answers that the survey uses distort the data. The survey only provides two options as to the respondent’s level of confidence in that institution, those options being if the respondents had “a great deal” or “some” confidence. The result of this is that the data is distorted as the lack of options means that those respondents that perhaps only have a very small degree of confidence in the military were categorised as having “some” confidence in the military. Similarly, members of this sample may also have chosen this response whom had a moderate or relatively strong degree of confidence in the military. In turn this lowers the validity of the results. Consequently, taking into account all of these factors this article is misleading in certain respects.

“Obama signs Executive order banning the pledge of allegiance in schools nationwide”

http://abcnews.com.co/obama-signs-executive-order-declaring-investigation-of-election-results/

In September 2016 www.abcnews.com.co a credited fake news website circulated on both their website, Facebook and Twitter page, that Obama has signed the executive order 13738 which revoked federal government recognition of the pledge of allegiance and banning it in schools nationwide. Both in America and around the world believed this news article, as it is  seen to become evident as the site was named ABC News who are a credited mainstream media source linked to the White house.

The news story explained the consequences of any public agencies including schools encouraging or reciting the pledge of allegiance, the story states people who break this new law “can face fines of up to $10,000 and up to one year in federal prison.” Once people read this, they started to recognise that this was illegitimate, as the consequences are too extreme to the small severity of the crime that they have committed.

This particular news story was seen as very direct and misinformed as there is an executive order 13738 signed by Barrack Obama on August 23^rd which focuses on labour laws and government’s use of private contractors. Here is provided a link to a federal government register website on the real executive order 13738. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-26/pdf/2016-20713.pdf.

Finally the website www.abcnews.com.co are clearly very right wing republican fake news site who were pushing false information for the American public to sway their opinions on both Obama and the democratic party, and it is also a convenience as the article was published so near to the 2016 election. This is just one prime example of a false story spread on social media and the internet to push their agenda, as 2016 was the year of the rise of fake news around the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/fbi-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-rise-2015

The headline for this news article reads: “FBI reports hate crimes against Muslims surged by 67% in 2015”. The article then follows by claiming: that the “Number of anti-Muslim hate crimes last year at its highest since 9/11” and that “Experts say rise is fuelled by extremism and Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric”.

The statement claiming that the ‘Number of anti-Muslim hate crimes last year at its highest since 9/11’ could be considered slightly misleading. This is because, although this statement is true it implies that the figures for 2015 are close to reaching levels recorded in 2001. However, in 2001 the number of hate crimes committed based on the victim being Muslim was 481, yet in 2015 the figures was 257. This shows how the 2015 figures are not reaching levels anywhere near as close to the 2001 figures. This therefore shows how this could be considered slightly misleading.

The second statement; ‘Experts say rise is fuelled by extremism and Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric’ is also problematic. This is because they are stating a correlation between Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric and the rise in hate crimes. However, due to this being correlational you cannot tell which is the cause or effect. There is a possibility, that these crimes being committed reflect the views of the people, which then lead to a president with an anti-Muslim rhetoric, rather than the suggestion of Trump’s opinions causing these hate crimes.

Although the original data does show that there has been an 67% increase in hate crimes against Muslims (103/154*100=66.8%), hate crimes overall have also risen by 22.7% (In 2014 there was 1014 incidents, in 2015 there was 1244 incidents, 230/1014*100= 22.68%). This shows that despite hate crimes against Muslims growing, hate crimes in general are also growing. This means that the original headline could be considered misleading as although hate crimes against Muslims ‘surged’, so did hate crimes in general.

Furthermore, out of the percentage of hate crimes committed against Muslims due to their religion is only 21.9%, yet 52.1% of the victims are Jewish. So, although the headline is true, it can be considered misleading as it suggests that hate crimes committed against Muslims are the highest, despite even with this rise, hate crimes against Jewish people are higher. Furthermore, there was also a rise in hate crimes in general. They rose by 22.68% (2014: 1014 incidents. 2015: 1244 incidents. 12244 – 1014 = 230. 230/1014*100= 22.68). There was also a big rise in hate crimes against Catholics which rose by 48% (2014: 25 incidents. 2015: 37 incidents. 12-25 * 100= 48%). Due to this, it could be argued that the headline is misleading because although hate crimes against Muslims did go up, so did hate crimes in general, especially hate crimes committed against Catholics. Therefore, it could be argued that the headline is misleading, as it is giving the impression that hate crimes are highest against Muslims, yet this is not the case.

To conclude, although the actual statistics are correct. What the headline is implying could be considered misleading, therefore you could argue that it is inaccurate.

The distribution of wealth held by each decile has been broadly unchanged since 2001-2003, according to these figures. The share of Identified Wealth held by the richest decile of the Identified Wealth population has remained fairly stable, fluctuating between 44% and 45% throughout the period from 2001-2003 to 2011-2013. (HMRC Income Tax Statistics and Distributions https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556637/WealthStatisticsCommentary.pdf)

Looking at the graphs provided on the HMRC website to back up the findings, it does show that there was very little, if any at all, change in the in the wealth held by the richest decile from 2001-2003 and 2011-2013. The website is trust worthy and findings are from a survey which is a requirement for people to take part in, therefore none of the averages are misleading and the data provided is accurate.

The sample used is also representative of the whole research population and would have been kept the same over the research being conducted in 2011-2003 and 2011-2013 therefore the sample used is not biased. The measurements used are also appropriate for the way the data has been presented and for what the data will be used for. The table used to present the findings is easy to understand and does represent what is in the key finding statement.

Overall the headline is not misleading as the facts and figures all seem to match and the type of sample and measurements that have been used are clear and give a nonbiased argument. Therefore there would be no better way of stating the headline.

Financial Times Article: ‘To build a shared society, focus on technical skills education’

https://www.ft.com/content/8f4d27f4-d80a-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

This article by Miranda Green from the Financial Times website states in the introductory paragraph that “nearly half of all young people are now enrolling in university, compared with one in five in 1990”. The last statistic here is correctly quoted as the overall participation rate in higher education, according to the Historical Education Statistics archives of the House of Commons Library, was 19.3% in 1990. However, the first statistic they claim is misleading. They say that “nearly half of all young people are now enrolling in university”. However, according to the Office for National Statistics data from which they derived this statistic, what is now at 48% is the Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR). This is an estimate of the likelihood of a young person participating in Higher Education by age 30 based on current participation rates. First, as it is only an estimate of the likelihood of participation rates, this does not mean that half of young people are enrolling at university. It just means that half of them are predicted too. Therefore, this statistic is misleading, particularly in this sentence when compared to the true data from 1990. Furthermore, the article uses the term ‘young people’ even though the data includes those up to the age of 30. To most people a 30-year-old would not necessarily be seen as a ‘young person’, and as such this term is misleading. This is especially because later in the article it is argued that the government “must focus on providing better prospects for 18-year-olds who do not study for a degree”. This implies that it is only 18-year-olds the article is talking about when the data they use actually covers everyone from the age of 17-30. Therefore, arguing that the needs of “the other 50%” of young people “not destined for university” are not being met due to poor alternatives to university, is an untrue statement to make based on this data.

This Daily Mail article discusses the idea that, according to a survey conducted by BMBR Research, men enjoy gossiping more than women. The article supports the headline  by using a number of statistics including one in ten men like to ‘dish the dirt’ about other people compared with 4% of women and 55% of men gossip at work compared to 46% of women.

It is noticeable that these statistics do not make sense when compared with each other. If, as the article claims, 55% of men admit to gossiping at work, then it is likely that more than 10% would have said they enjoying gossiping. This could indicate that those surveyed found the questions confusing with respondents having different perspectives on what it means to gossip and what they consider to be dishing the dirt.  Men may gossip more but they are talking about topics very different from women as explained later in the article. For men, the main topics are old school friends, the sexiest girls at work, promotions etc, whereas the focus on women’s’ gossip is more likely to be family feuds, TV shows, friends etc. To provide greater clarity the survey should have asked more direct questions referencing particular types of gossip and so allow for a direct comparison, for example ‘how often do you talk about you co-workers with friends?’.  The results of this survey are also likely to be unreliable as it is asking about a topic which people may feel ashamed to tell the truth and more pressured to lie.

There are also issues with the research sample with only 1,033 adults across the UK surveyed. This is an odd number and with the ratio of female to male respondents not stated, it can be assumed that either a greater number of males or females were polled thus meaning the percentages shouldn’t be compared. The sample is also too small for the sampling frame making it unrepresentative of the British population, which is 64 million. The fact that only adults across the UK were sampled should be stated in the headline, else it could be assumed from reading the headline alone that this survey is representative of all men and woman globally and of all ages.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-83255/Men-likely-gossip-women–survey.html

This is the claim made in an article made by BBC in March 2017.

The article then goes into stating that ‘’But while men are still much more likely to kill themselves in Canada, young women are starting to catch up. Over the past decade, the suicide rate amongst girls has increased by 38%, while male suicide decreased by 34%.

The growth has helped level out the gender-gap, with women accounting for 42% of all suicide deaths under 20 in 2013. In 2003, they accounted for just over a quarter.’’

The first major statement made claims that in the past decade the suicide rate amongst young women has increased over 38%  while male suicide decreased by 34%, to analyse this data I looked at the original source which BBC used to make this claim. I found Statistic Canada first, the website which BBC got their figures from in order to check whether teen suicide is on the rise amongst Canadian girls.

The data I have found from the previous five years indeed shows a rise in the number of teenage girls committing suicide if we look at the figures from 2009, 12 girls aged 10 to 14 have committed suicide and 57 teenage girls age 15to 19 whereas the figures rose in 2013, 20 girl age 10 to 14 have committed suicide whereas 66 girls age 15 to 19 have also committed suicide.

This shows an increase in the amount of young women committing suicide, in the space of 4 years the figures for the first group of girls rose from 1.33% of the total amount of suicides committed by women/girls in 2009 to 1.97% of the total amount of suicides committed by women/girls in 2013. Furthermore, the second group of girls also showed an increase from 6.33% of the total amount of suicides committed by women/girls in 2009 to 6.52% of the total amount of suicides committed by women/girls in 2013. Although, some may argue that the increase is not drastic it still shows that the headline is correct, as the amount of suicides committed by teenage girls in Canada is on a rise.

Moreover, the newspaper report also presents a graph:

This graph clearly shows that the amount of suicides committed by females ages 0-19 was on a clear rise which still continues, and although it reached its highest peak in 2005, it has been growing pretty steadily for the past couple of years. In this case it was very important to look at the source from which BBC news gathered their statistics, which is ‘Statistics Canada’.  Statistics Canada was invented in 1971 and it  is the Government of Canada government agency commissioned with producing statistics to help better understand Canada. Further research stated that ‘’ The bureau is commonly called StatCan or StatsCan. StatCan is the official abbreviation. It has regularly been considered the best statistical organization in the world by The Economist, such as in the 1991 and 1993 “Good Statistics” surveys. Public Policy Forum and others have also ranked it first.’’[1] In this case it is fair to say that the data which BBC has used is fairly correct. Although, Statistics Canada bases their statistics on surveys completed by the residents of Canada, and surveys are often highly unreliable as people often do not want to speak out about uncomfortable matters such as suicide and therefore, they may not provide true answers. However, taking it all into consideration it is still fairly accurate and therefore, the headline used by the BBC news is not misleading.

Article used: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39210463

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_Canada

The Express cites the Office of National Statistics for data behind their claims, specifically the estimate of long term migrants. Short-term migrants are classed as staying for less than a year, and long term is anything more than this. To arrive at the statistic shown in the headline, the Express has added five years’ worth of data of short-term EU visitors to the official estimate of long term migrants. However, short time migrants only reside in Britain for a year or less, meaning it is not accurate to include them in the statistic. Furthermore, the phrase ‘found down the back of the sofa’ is also inaccurate as the short term migrant statistics were published by ONS meaning that they were available to the public.

The article then also goes on to claim “Piotr the plumber” might “have had no intention of staying on” beyond a year, he might change his mind and stay. In the report by ONS, the statistic of long-term migration is adjusted to account for ‘switchers’, people who start out as visitors but stay for longer. The paper itself has its maths wrong as the ONS estimates long-term migration in the five years to June 2015 was 1 million, not 900,000.

Furthermore, the newspaper makes other claims from these inaccurate statistics such as migrants are responsible for children not getting into secondary school, people not getting on the housing ladder and pregnant woman being turned away from maternity units.