Asking the Right Questions, A Guide to Critical Thinking, 8th Ed

162 Chapter 11
absolute change, from 9 to 6 percent, is only a three percent reduction, and
the improvement of a good outcome from 91 to 94 is also only three percent.
The point is that expressing risk reductions in relative, rather than absolute
terms, can make treatment effects seem larger than they really are, and
individuals are more likely to embrace a treatment when benefits are
expressed in relative rather than absolute terms. As you might expect, drug
companies usually use relative risk in their ads, and media reports also tend
to focus on relative risk.
Relative risk reduction statistics can be deceiving. When you encounter
arguments using such statistics, always try to determine how the results might
be different and less impressive if expressed in absolute terms.
Summary
We have highlighted a number of ways by which you can catch people "lying"
with statistics. We hope that you can now see the problem with statistic about
the widespread use of the term "Kafkaesque." Hints: Where did that impressive
figure of more than 250 languages come from? Have Kafka's works been translated
into more than 250 languages?
Clues for Assessing Statistics
1. Try to find out as much as you can about how the statistics were
obtained. Ask, "How does the author or speaker know?"
2. Be curious about the type of average being described.
3. Be alert to users of statistics concluding one thing, but proving another.
4. Blind yourself to the writer's or speaker's statistics and compare
the needed statistical evidence with the statistics actually provided.
5. Form your own conclusion from the statistics. If it doesn't match
the author's or speaker's conclusion, then something is probably
wrong.
6. Determine what information is missing. Be especially alert for misleading
numbers and percentages and for missing comparisons.
J) Critical Question: Are the statistics deceptive?