Huckabee: "Go after Dems who Opposed Results"

Mott the Hoople said:
Here’s PiMP playing Ostrich Science again. Just because you don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I mean yea we see it all the time where grand juries indict folks with no evidence whatsoever. Happens all the time doesn’t it? LOL
Click to expand...

you do realize that lawyers have a saying, "you can get a grand jury to convict a ham sandwich".....umlike actual trials, grand juries don't have defense lawyers or restrictions on the admissability of evidence.......
 
Grokmaster said:
Arkansas has higher average SAT scores than California, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois.


DER.




https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/sat-scores-by-state/
Click to expand...

You moron. Do you even know how to read statistics? Arkansas only had a 2% participation rate. Texas had an average score 100 points lower but they had a 55% participation rate. California was the same 100 points lower with a 21% participation rate which probably means more students participated than Arkansas has people.

2% buddy. A 2% participation rate!

MA averaged 100 points lower but had a 55% participation rate. New York had a 59% participation rate. Illinois has a 97% participation rate. Do you even see the inverse proportionality here?

Let me explain it to you. The higher the participation rate the lower the average score.

If you analyze these average scores for all the States via a linear regression analysis of average score vs participation rate then adjust their scores by the regression coefficient than Arkansas ends up back at the bottom of the pack due to their ridiculously low 2% participation rate.

So what the Data is really saying is that on average, based on linear regression analysis, the top 2% of participants in Texas, Massachusetts and Illinois would have average scores of their top 2% over 1600 points. California would be around 1400 for their top 2%.

The very fact that Arkansas only had a tiny 2% participation rate in and of itself is indicative of a large educational attainment gap in the State of Arkansas. That’s a fact, based on the data, that has a better than 99% chance of being correct.

If you’re going to cite statistics you’d might want to actually study statistics or someone like myself, who has actually studied statistics and has used them in real world circumstances, not just the classroom, is going to make an ass out of you like I just did.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
you do realize that lawyers have a saying, "you can get a grand jury to convict a ham sandwich".....umlike actual trials, grand juries don't have defense lawyers or restrictions on the admissability of evidence.......
Click to expand...

Absolutely I have. I’ve also read the statements of facts the indictments presents. Thus this warrants advancing this case further. They have laid out a persuasive argument. The wheels of justice move a little further. When the judges start throwing out the prosecutions case for lack of evidence then you will have made a point.

Till then may the wheels of justice move forward.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You moron. Do you even know how to read statistics? Arkansas only had a 2% participation rate. Texas had an average score 100 points lower but they had a 55% participation rate. California was the same 100 points lower with a 21% participation rate which probably means more students participated than Arkansas has people.

2% buddy. A 2% participation rate!

MA averaged 100 points lower but had a 55% participation rate. New York had a 59% participation rate. Illinois has a 97% participation rate. Do you even see the inverse proportionality here?

Let me explain it to you. The higher the participation rate the lower the average score.

If you analyze these average scores for all the States via a linear regression analysis of average score vs participation rate then adjust their scores by the regression coefficient than Arkansas ends up back at the bottom of the pack due to their ridiculously low 2% participation rate.

So what the Data is really saying is that on average, based on linear regression analysis, the top 2% of participants in Texas, Massachusetts and Illinois would have average scores of their top 2% over 1600 points. California would be around 1400 for their top 2%.

The very fact that Arkansas only had a tiny 2% participation rate in and of itself is indicative of a large educational attainment gap in the State of Arkansas. That’s a fact, based on the data, that has a better than 99% chance of being correct.

If you’re going to cite statistics you’d might want to actually study statistics or someone like myself, who has actually studied statistics and has used them in real world circumstances, not just the classroom, is going to make an ass out of you like I just did.
Click to expand...

This whole data set is bad. This is how statistical lies get created. The only conclusion you can make is that the States with the highest participation rate probably have the most accurate SAT average score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top