Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + +
Talk:Essay:Conservative Benefits (view source)
Revision as of 15:39, February 22, 2010
, 15:39, February 22, 2010But even observations on small sample sizes can be statistically significant.
Where are the sources for the remarriage statement and even if the statement were true the sample size was to small to be accurate. Moderatecatholic did point out though that this IS an essay so opinion can be thrown in but it still bothers me that that figure has no source. I would also like to see a study conducted with a larger sample size in order to get a more accurate count because liberals looser marital morals I would think they would have a higher remarriage rate, my personal thoughts, not fact.
Where are the sources for the remarriage statement and even if the statement were true the sample size was to small to be accurate. Moderatecatholic did point out though that this IS an essay so opinion can be thrown in but it still bothers me that that figure has no source. I would also like to see a study conducted with a larger sample size in order to get a more accurate count because liberals looser marital morals I would think they would have a higher remarriage rate, my personal thoughts, not fact.
:I would welcome a larger study. But even observations on small sample sizes can be statistically significant. The rate of lung cancer among non-smokers is very low, and thus it does not require a large sample size of smokers who developed lung cancer in order to draw conclusions of correlation and causation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 22 February 2010 (EST)