Statistics Journal Entry: Probabilities and Politics on Facebook
My purpose in assigning this journal entry is for you to take a statistical claim at more than just face
value. Additionally, I want you all to be able to use the written word to fight statistical ignorance in
social media. Your analysis should be between 100 and 200 words in length—total, between both parts.
You should use what you have learned up to this point in class to back up your claims.
Your purpose and audience as a writer:
You are on Facebook and notice that your friends are starting to post a lot more items of a political
nature since elections are drawing near. In particular, your friend J.J. has posted the following quote
from Senator Rand Paul from January 26, 2014:
“What he [President Obama] misunderstands is that nine out of 10 businesses fail, so nine out of 10
times, he’s going to give it to the wrong people. He gave $500 million to one of the richest men in the
country to build solar panels, and we lost that money.”
J.J. follows the above quote by saying:
“So if nine out of 10 businesses are failing, how can I ever expect to start a business in this economy? I
guess I’m just screwed.”
Part 1: Your first task is to respond to J.J.’s post, in your journal, as you would on Facebook. Address
whether or not you believe a claim like Rand Paul’s can be taken at face value, and talk about what
statistical factors may or may not have been considered when Rand Paul stated this statistic. Be sure to
use what you have learned about probabilities, sampling techniques, and unusual values in your post to
J.J.
Part 2: After you have completed your post in your journal, exchange journals with another member of
your home group. Read their response to J.J., and keep the Facebook thread going by adding in your
comment below your home group member’s post. Was there anything that the home group member
missed? Are you in agreement with him/her? Are you and the home group member on the same page,
statistically speaking?
Grading criteria
You will be graded on the following scale:
10 points – You have fully addressed J.J.’s claim using accurate statistical analysis (part 1) and have
replied to your home group member’s post (part 2) in a meaningful way.
7 points – You have addressed J.J.’s claim using accurate statistical analysis (part 1) but have not replied
to a home group member’s post or not done so in a meaningful way (part 2).
5 points – You have made a reply to J.J. (part 1) and to your home group member’s post (part 2), but
your statistical analysis is flawed.
0 points – The criteria mentioned above has not been met.