[kj] Duh

[Flight Bringer]

You are being very mischievous Brendan , you have only used half the paragraph. You have chopped a paragraph in half and have been critical about it, whereas if you would have used the whole paragraph, then it that context, it would been presentable English . The full paragraph was :
 
"Army desertion rates have fluctuated since the Vietnam War — when they peaked at 5 percent. In the 1970s they hovered between 1 and 3 percent, which is up to three out of every 100 soldiers. Those rates plunged in the 1980s and early 1990s to between 2 and 3 out of every 1,000 soldiers."
 
   The words which you highlighted "which is up to three out of every 100 soldiers" , should be seen in the context with  the rest of the sentence : *3 soldiers out of a 100 left in the 1970's and 3 out of a 1000 left in the 1990's* , was the paragraphs meaning . 
   They could have written: 3% of soldiers deserted in the 1980s whilst 0.3% of soldiers deserted in the 1990s , but saying 3 out of a 1000 is easier to understand then saying 0.3%.
   
 


From: bq at soundgardener.co.nzTo: gathering at misera.netDate: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:56:13 +1300Subject: [kj] Duh




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters
 
Army desertion rates have fluctuated since the Vietnam War — when they peaked at 5 percent. In the 1970s they hovered between 1 and 3 percent, which is up to three out of every 100 soldiers.
 
Duh. Are journalists getting dumber or are they catering to a dumber audience? Or both?
_________________________________________________________________
Feel like a local wherever you go.
http://www.backofmyhand.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20071119/b2e328fd/attachment.htm>