Which part? Can you explain your reasoning in a way that’s not just “nuh-uh”?
As I understand it, an average is when you add together several quantities and then divide that total by the number of quantities. How does this in any way affect actual living wage (or grades, in my given example)?
Just knowing that the average is 50 does not in any way tell you the grades of the majority of the class. Most of the kids could be passing while a few abysmal performers bring the average down.
That’s what you take issue with? That the analogy isn’t completely perfect? Do you get the general idea of what I’m saying, or does that slight inconsistency complete negate the entire argument?
The point is that an average isn’t indicative of overall health… it’s just a value representing the average income. It makes no bearing on actual economic health without comparing it to other factors.
Just because something is average doesn’t mean it’s good.
If the average grade of a class is fifty… that doesn’t mean it’s a good grade. It just means a majority of the class is failing.
That’s… not how averages work.
Which part? Can you explain your reasoning in a way that’s not just “nuh-uh”?
As I understand it, an average is when you add together several quantities and then divide that total by the number of quantities. How does this in any way affect actual living wage (or grades, in my given example)?
Just knowing that the average is 50 does not in any way tell you the grades of the majority of the class. Most of the kids could be passing while a few abysmal performers bring the average down.
That’s what you take issue with? That the analogy isn’t completely perfect? Do you get the general idea of what I’m saying, or does that slight inconsistency complete negate the entire argument?
The point is that an average isn’t indicative of overall health… it’s just a value representing the average income. It makes no bearing on actual economic health without comparing it to other factors.