The stats indicate that burglaries and grand larcenies are up, so why does the chart show a negative percentage change? Someone at this prestigious paper can't do math.
There are a lot a stats out there talking about how safer areas are, yet the public's perception is that a host of things are not right.
Are they playing games with stats, or are they simply not reponding to quality of life issues, particularly when the tweeded are involved?
Was out on a major street the other day in Queens and spotted the novelty of two cops on a corner. A tweeder stopped at a light blasting his 'music' for all the world to hear.
If you take a closer look--you'll see that the 2007 column is the first one. So their math is correct, but they put the columns in an un-standard order.
I beg to differ, Claire. According to the chart, there were 187 burglaries in 2007 and 157 in 2006. So the percentage change would therefore be a positive number "19", meaning the burglaries went up, but the paper printed "-16" instead. No, I stick by my original analysis. Someone at the Ledger can't do math.
The stats indicate that burglaries and grand larcenies are up, so why does the chart show a negative percentage change? Someone at this prestigious paper can't do math.
8 comments:
There are a lot a stats out there talking about how safer areas are, yet the public's perception is that a host of things are not right.
Are they playing games with stats, or are they simply not reponding to quality of life issues, particularly when the tweeded are involved?
Was out on a major street the other day in Queens and spotted the novelty of two cops on a corner. A tweeder stopped at a light blasting his 'music' for all the world to hear.
The cops, of course, did nothing.
If you take a closer look--you'll see that the 2007 column is the first one. So their math is correct, but they put the columns in an un-standard order.
I beg to differ, Claire. According to the chart, there were 187 burglaries in 2007 and 157 in 2006. So the percentage change would therefore be a positive number "19", meaning the burglaries went up, but the paper printed "-16" instead. No, I stick by my original analysis. Someone at the Ledger can't do math.
P.S.: Grand larcenies = +21%
Ha ha we all know Walter Sanchez can't do math. That's why he's always in financial trouble.
ah--now I'm the one who can't read!
i just looked at the first 3 rows, which seemed correct, then my internet ADD said "post a comment!"
When I look at this all I'm thinking is five rapes sounds very scary to me.
Since when does anyone believe anything that's written in the Queens Ledger?
Post a Comment