That number needs context.critical observation
Use when: a statistic has been presented without the background information needed to interpret it meaningfully
Numbers are never self-explanatory. A figure without a baseline, a comparison, or a methodology is incomplete — and sometimes deliberately so. This phrase opens the door to deeper analysis.
"Crime rose by 15% last year — but that number needs context. Is that compared to last year, or to the pre-pandemic baseline? And which crimes are being counted?"
Compared to what?critical question
Use when: a number has been presented without a comparison point, making it impossible to judge its significance
The single most powerful question to ask about any statistic. A number is only meaningful in relation to something else — a baseline, a historical trend, a comparable country, a different group.
"The government says waiting times have fallen by 20%. Compared to what? Compared to the record highs of two years ago, or to the pre-cuts levels of a decade ago?"
What's the margin of error?methodological question
Use when: evaluating a poll, survey, or statistical estimate — asking how reliable the figure actually is
The margin of error tells you the range within which the true figure probably falls. A poll showing 51% support for a policy with a 3% margin of error means the true figure could be anywhere from 48% to 54% — barely a majority or a decisive lead.
"The poll shows the two candidates within one point of each other. Before drawing conclusions, what's the margin of error? If it's ±3%, this race is statistically tied."
These figures are disputed.factual qualification
Use when: noting that the statistic being cited is contested — that other sources produce different numbers
Many of the most politically significant numbers — death tolls, inflation rates, unemployment figures — are actively disputed by different organizations with different methodologies and interests. Naming the dispute is essential.
"The government puts the death toll at 43. These figures are disputed — independent monitors and journalists on the ground have documented at least 120 deaths."
The raw number doesn't tell the whole story.analytical caution
Use when: a headline figure is technically accurate but misleading without further breakdown or context
Statistics can be accurate but profoundly incomplete. A national average may hide enormous regional variation; a total may mask a collapse in one sub-group. The raw number is the beginning of analysis, not its end.
"Average wages rose by 4% nationally — but the raw number doesn't tell the whole story. That average is driven by huge gains at the top; median wages for the bottom 40% actually fell."
That's a relative increase, not an absolute one.precision correction
Use when: distinguishing between percentage change (relative) and actual numerical change (absolute) — a common source of misleading statistics
Relative and absolute numbers can both be technically correct but create very different impressions. "Double the risk" sounds alarming; "risk rises from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000" sounds manageable. Both are accurate.
"The headline says cases have 'doubled' — but that's a relative increase, not an absolute one. It went from 12 to 24. That's a 100% increase, but in absolute terms it's still a very small number."
Who commissioned this study?source evaluation question
Use when: checking whether the organization that funded a study might have an interest in its conclusions
Funding influences findings — not always through direct manipulation, but through research design, what questions get asked, what gets published, and what doesn't. Knowing who paid for a study is essential context.
"The report claims that increasing working hours improves employee wellbeing. Who commissioned this study? If it was funded by an employer lobbying group, that context changes how we should read the findings."
Statistics can be presented selectively.critical awareness statement
Use when: noting that a set of figures has been chosen and arranged to support a particular argument, while equally valid data that tells a different story has been omitted
Cherry-picking statistics — selecting only the figures that support your argument — is one of the most common forms of misleading communication. The selected figures may be individually accurate; the overall picture they create is distorted.
"The minister cited three statistics showing the policy is working. But statistics can be presented selectively — there are at least five other indicators in the same report that point in the opposite direction."