They don't. Statistically speaking, you can quickly refute or call into question his fake 2015 stats by looking at the 2014 , 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010 stats. His numbers would immediately be viewed as skewed data that any statistician would tell you highlights some OBVIOUS errors in the" 2015 assessment".
And I believe the FBI STILL does give semiannual crime reports or a summary of that nature to give folks an idea of where certain crimes are trending in the current year. But it's moot since there is no San Francisco Bureau or any stats from the FBI to corroborate his numbers .
Statistically speaking, I certainly can. And LOGICALLY speaking, I can refute them by looking at when the 2014 stats are released and say there's no way he could no what that pic shows.
Still be skewed data that will STATISTICALLY have the numbers thrown out as it is completely out of the range of the norm.
Neither true statistically or logically. Statistically, skewed data is refuted every day by statisticians, mathematicians, economists etc. based upon it being way out of character with the norm. Such info is often thrown out because the methodology is believed to be flawed or it is discounted because it's so out of character to the norm.
And logically again, we know when we got the 2014 numbers so we know about when we should get 2015 numbers.
Is it too late to get your money back? You should have stopped by the Philosophy Department and taken a Logic class. You are confusing evidence with proof. No conclusive proof of 2015 crime rates can be established from 2014 crime rates. In the end, 2015 doesn't care what happened in 2014.
Statistical anomalies exist. If they didn't we wouldn't have a word for anomaly.
Yep. But plenty of time for you to enroll so that you, too, can understand
statistics.
I took lots of mathematical logic.
You asked for evidence.
You didn't ask for conclusive proof. You asked me to refute it. And refutation doesn't
demand a proof as it may also be established by argument. Wink Learned that one in law school.
Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. re·fute
(rĭ-fyo͞ot′) tr.v.re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. 2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll. 3. Usage Problem To repudiate.