but about different facets of the Stat Problem, IMO.

Drew's - as simply limns the places to seek defects in any such A --> B --> C 'deduction', especially when pulled out-of-ass from unrelated dbases, say.

Yours - because well, via Einstein at best, and for just one:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Any extrapolation of numbers into the ephemeral world of intermixed personal-dreams? 'valuez', Repo- (and even less scurrilous..) propaganda slogans

- as are so frequently intermixed in the same sentence, let alone paragragh; especially in Murican polotico-speak -

guarantees bogosity.

ie Even if the stats are gotten-Right: there is no / can be no "Ergo We Should next do This: ___" - except in very elementary cases involving say, 'triage' of bloody masses of the marginally-alive?


(If a math problem cannot be expressed clearly in words, to the minimally math-ept: the author of the formula is apt not-to comprehend what he thought she was 'showing' - that's My mantra.)
cf. ~~ any Dick Feynman essay, as my evidence. 'Math' includes Stats.