OK, so commentary on CNN articles is not as uncommon on this blog as I’d have thought it would be.  But when they write articles like this one talking about bad statistical analysis, its hard not to say something.  I quote, “More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study.”  You do the math: someone’s leg is engaging in premarital sex without the rest of their body.  Either that or their over-simplification of the percentage means that they stink at evaluating the quality of the statement.  One more than nine is ten [if you didn’t know that before, I doubt you’re reading this].   Therefore saying more than nine out of ten would be like saying more than  zero out of one.  If you use a whole number ratio make sure that the whole numbers add up.  The reason that the report later says 95% is because 95% works in a 100% scenario.  If the number had been ninety percent, then I’d be OK with things, or maybe even 80%, but no, they had to involve appendages and non-whole bodies engaging in sex.

And I think that’s just wrong 😉