Keyshawn. My survey says that Americans don't particularly care about the proposal of adding a small federal tax on all computers and modems sold in the United States. My people visited over a thousand grocery stores and speciality markets in all fifty states. They selected people from all walks of life and all income levels. They asked twenty thousand people what they thought about the proposed tax. Most hadn't heard of it, and didn't care about it when they did hear. Those who cared were evenly distributed between mildly for and mildly against.
Dominique. Well, your information is wildly wrong, probably because of the small sample size. My company found a way to reach one hundred thousand people in a very short period of time. We did an e-mail poll of names selected at random from a very large database.
Keyshawn.
1. Keyshawn's
survey consulted twenty thousand people regarding the proposed tax.
2. These
people were found in 100+ grocery stores and speciality markets in
all fifty states.
3. Keyshawn's survey found
little interest and no preference regarding the proposed tax
C.
Americans don't particularly care about a small federal tax on computers and modems.
DIRECT
Dominique 1.
Dominique's
survey consulted one hundred thousand people regarding the proposed tax.
2.
Dominique's
survey was an e-mail poll of names selected at random from a very large database.
3. Ninety-five percent of Dominique's respondents had heard of the tax, and eighty percent were strongly against it.
C.
Americans are strongly against a small federal tax on computers and modems.
DIRECT
Keyshawn
gives
a direct argument
Dominique gives
a direct argument
Both seem to bear the burden
of proof against the null hypothesis, which is that we don't know whether or
not Americans oppose the tax.
Keyshawn Generalization Argument.
Dominique(1) Generalization Argument.
Population: Americans Population: Americans
Sample:
Grocery/speciality shoppers Sample: E-mail
users from a large database.
Age:
Current [as far as we know] Age:
Current [as far as we know]
Size:
20,000 Size:
100,000
[optional] Dominique(2) Sample Spoiler
Counter Argument.
Problem
Cited: Sample size
Evidence
for Problem: 20,0000 respondants in Keyshawn's survey.
Evaluation: Is Keyshawn's sample too small? Not really. 20,000 respondents distributed appropriately through the American population will give a very accurate idea of people's attitudes, especially on something as simple as this. But then, how do we explain the fact that Dominique's poll had such a wildly different result? First, notice that this was an e-mail poll. Could an e-mail poll reach anybody who was not a computer user? Is it possible that computer users have different attitudes about the costs of computer equipment than non-users? Second, notice that Dominique's company selected names from a "a very large database." It's possible that that database was composed of the names of people who had bought things from Dominique's company. And it is also possible that Dominique's company makes or sells computers and/or modems. Dominique's argument suffers from a biased sample.
Fallacies: Dominique(1)
Hasty generalization (possibly biased sampling method.)
Dominique(2)
Red herring (20,000 people is not too small.)
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
