October 27th, 2013, 06:29 PM
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Originally Posted by jeepinRRT
You have exactly zero understanding of that graph or correlations.
Here is a correct intrepretation...
This graph reflects that the diagnosis of autism has increased over the time period. Also, the sales of organic foods has increased over the same time period. There is a strong correlation between these two variables.
To say "there is a direct connection
to autism from
the consumption of
organic foods" is simply not supported by anything remotely displayed on the graph.
Connection- Wrong, you cannot make a causal statement from a correlational study. This is only correct insofar as correlation and connection are synonyms.
From- Again, no causal relationship can be inferred.
Consumption of organic foods- Reading comprehension fail. The variable was sale of organic foods, not consumption. Although I do understand that consumption follows purchase, this graph provides no information to suggest the consumption of organic foods increased with the increase in sales over the same time period, thus it cannot be assumed.
I outline this to make the point that society has a whole has an elementary understanding at best, of graph interpretation and correlations.
May god help our education system.
I can see how you came to this conclusion, my wife buys food that goes bad and ends up in the trash.