AWhose commercial might it be? Are commercials biased in general?
BHow does the placement of the booth affect the outcome?
CAre there fewer cars driving during the night?
DWhat is the foundation of this claim?
ASee solution.
BSee solution.
CSee solution.
DSee solution.
Practice makes perfect
Since this is a TV commercial, it might be crucial to ask what this commercial is about and who aired it. Chances are that it was aimed to popularize this particular radio station ad this is why all respondents shown hinted towards this station being their favorite. However, there are some questions to be asked about this commercial.
Were those 5 respondents the whole study group or were they selected to be shown on TV?
How was the question asked framed? Was the question itself biased?
Remember that commercials is general tend to be biased, since they are all issued by somebody in order to promote something they have interest in.
Notice that the surveys booth are placed outside the university gym, which means that people who attend the gym regularly will be more likely to take part in the vote. However, not everybody at the university goes to the gym regularly.
What percentage of students go to the university gym?
Are there other university facilities which are in more need of financial aid?
Imagine the survey booths were placed in the main hall. How would the results of the survey change?
Those uncertainties make this survey biased.
The survey consists of two sentences. The first gives some information and the second one asks the question. However, notice that the first sentence strongly suggests that the answer to the question should be yes. But it does not talk about other factors that might affect the situation talked about in the first sentence!
Are there also many fewer cars driving on I-95 during the night?
Maybe instead of number of accidents, we should look at the percentages?
Because of the first sentence and how the survey is framed, we should consider it biased.
It is clear that this group is against nuclear power and therefore they want to shut it down. We are told that their claim is that the safety levels are below average, but we are given no evidence to prove it.
What is the basis of their claim?
Have they conducted appropriate experiments?
Could their experiments be biased because of their opinions?
There are many unanswered questions here and their claim without proof is biased.
