> The author was trying to stress the importance of wearing a life jacket, I don't think they need to get into statistical robustness in their summary paragraph for something that is so _obviously_ correct.
Then don't provide statistics and just state that it's obviously correct. If doing so is less convincing, then it means that the statement _was_ misleading.
> The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do.
I think they believe the conclusion is true and are intentionally saying whatever they can to make people think it's true, regardless of whether the reasoning they imply is correct.
E: So, in my estimation they are intentionally misleading in the area of valid arguments and not in the area of water safety.
Then don't provide statistics and just state that it's obviously correct. If doing so is less convincing, then it means that the statement _was_ misleading.
> The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do.
I think they believe the conclusion is true and are intentionally saying whatever they can to make people think it's true, regardless of whether the reasoning they imply is correct.
E: So, in my estimation they are intentionally misleading in the area of valid arguments and not in the area of water safety.