In this lesson:
By the end of this two-lesson capstone, you should be able to:
"New Study: Students Who Drink Coffee Score 15% Higher on Exams."
That feeling of credibility is what we're about to interrogate.
Pull every report into these three before you judge it.
The claim is not the evidence. They are almost never the same size.
The claim is confident, sweeping, causal. The evidence is some number from some group.
Polish lives in the claim; truth lives in the evidence.
Each lens is a question this unit already taught you to ask.
A wellness blog reports people who do yoga sleep 40 minutes longer, from a survey of its newsletter subscribers.
Write it alone before advancing.
We separated claim from evidence — now we interrogate the evidence.
This is the sampling lens — straight from A.1 and B.4.
Ask all four out loud before you trust any population claim.
"Students" — but which students?
A self-selected group of coffee fans can't speak for all students.
Coffee-shop volunteers opted in — that's voluntary response, biased from the start.
Sample size sets how much random noise rides on the result.
Tiny sample → shaky number. The headline hides which.
Bias is a direction error; size only sharpens the wrong target.
If the report hides its sample size and method, that silence counts against it.
The presence of a number is not the presence of evidence.
The study was 30 self-selected coffee drinkers on an online survey.
Stay on the sampling lens. Does it generalize?
A fitness brand says 78% of users saw results in 30 days.
The missing information is the finding. Write it down.
✓ Split every report: claim, evidence, source ✓ Sampling lens: who / how / how many / disclosed? ✓ A big biased sample beats a small random one — false
Numbers are the start of scrutiny, not the end A percentage with no or uncertainty is a headline
A report can pass the sampling lens and still overreach.
In Lesson 2, you'll match a claim's verb to its study design — and name causal overreach, the most common failure in data reporting.