Misleading numbers
30 cases in this category
Easy
What should you think about this 87% figure?
An ad for an energy gel announces: “87% of users felt more energised!” At the bottom of the page, in tiny print: “Survey of 45 people who had already purchased the product.”
- Only 45 people, and every one of them a buyer
- It's reliable: 87% is a clear majority
- The maths checks out, so the number must be accurate
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Only 45 people, and every one of them a buyer
Those 45 people don't represent anyone: they're people who already paid for the product and want to feel good about their purchase. No control group, nobody else tested it for comparison. An impressive percentage built on a tiny, biased sample is worth nothing. The move: who actually answered? How were they chosen?
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 9. Does the number have context?
Is the headline accurate?
A regional newspaper's headline: “Emergency admissions up 200% in a single month!” The article clarifies: “From 8 visits to 24 visits in January, compared with the previous December.” The department normally handles 800 to 1,000 cases a month.
- No: the arithmetic is right, but the rise is tiny
- No: 16 more visits means a 16% rise, not 200%
- Yes, and a 200% rise in a month is an emergency
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: the arithmetic is right, but the rise is tiny
Tripling a tiny number is still a tiny number: 8 to 24 is indeed a rise of 200%, and at a department that handles a thousand cases a month it is ordinary day-to-day variation. Watch the second trap too: 16 extra visits is not “a 16% rise.” An increase counted in cases and an increase counted in percent are two different quantities, and swapping one for the other is its own mistake. The percentage change hides the real scale. The move: find the starting point in absolute numbers, then judge whether the change is genuinely unusual or just noise.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 6. Too good to be true?
Why is this number misleading on its own?
A beverage brand announces: “Our customers buy from us an average of 4 times a month.” What that hides: within that same group, some customers buy 20 times a month, others just once. The average is papering over two completely different worlds.
- Because you'd need to know the total number of customers
- Because 4 times a month is way too much
- Because the average hides the spread between them
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because the average hides the spread between them
An average of 4 could represent 1,000 customers who buy 3 times AND 10 customers who buy 100 times. Some customers are super-buyers, others buy once: the middle number hides both, and the genuinely interesting figure stays invisible. Brands love the average because it sounds reasonable. The move: ask for the median (the number that splits the group exactly in half) or the gap between the biggest and smallest buyers. That brings you back to reality.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context?
What's missing to judge this number?
You read: “Sales for a watch brand grew 150% in three years.” No date, no starting number given. You have no idea whether that means going from 2 watches to 5, or from a million to 2.5 million.
- The currency exchange rate
- The raw figures at the start and at the end
- The name of the brand's founder
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The raw figures at the start and at the end
A percentage with no context is an empty shell. Without the absolute figures at both ends, 150% of an unknown base tells you nothing: it is just noise. The move: always look for the raw numbers. What was there before? What's there now? Only with both figures can you judge whether the increase is real or theatrical.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 3. What's the date?
What's the visual trick here?
A chart shows temperature changes over a month. The Y-axis starts at 18°C (even though the lowest reading is 19.5°C) and tops out at 25°C. The day-to-day swings look enormous, with dramatic peaks and dips.
- The chart shows real, genuinely impressive swings
- The Y-axis doesn't start at zero
- There's no problem, the chart is accurate as it is
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The Y-axis doesn't start at zero
By starting the axis at 18°C instead of 0°C, a two or three degree change looks visually enormous: the truncated axis amplifies small variations. It's a classic trick for turning something mundane into something dramatic, and the reader sees a roller coaster where there's really just normal variation. The move: always check where the axis starts and what the real numeric range is, not just how big it looks.
Related reflex(es): 4. Does the image show what they claim? · 9. Does the number have context?
What should you think of the headline number?
An article about accidents claims: “12,000 scooter accidents this month!” Reading further: “That's the combined total for the last three months, nationwide.”
- 12,000 is the real figure, the headline is accurate
- The headline is accurate but the rest of the article is useless
- The figure covers three months, not one
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The figure covers three months, not one
The headline hides the unit: it puts a three-month, nationwide total under a sentence that talks about a single month. The real figure is closer to 4,000 a month, but the headline creates the impression of a one-month emergency. It's a deliberate mix-up between a running total and a single snapshot. The move: check whether the number being announced is yearly, monthly, weekly, or a cumulative total. That detail changes everything.
Related reflex(es): 3. What's the date? · 9. Does the number have context?
Is this 20% figure usable?
A news outlet announces: “Crime is up 20% in the south-central region this year!” It turns out the data lumps together burglaries, minor offences, and unpaid parking tickets, all mixed into a single number.
- No: it mixes parking fines and assaults
- Yes, it's an official figure
- No, but only because it's too old to matter
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: it mixes parking fines and assaults
“Crime” is vague. Lumping together unpaid parking tickets, burglaries and violent offences, then rolling it all into one number, mixes categories that don't belong together: a rise in parking tickets is not a rise in assaults, and the figure confuses more than it clarifies. The real question: what, exactly, went up? The move: ask for the breakdown. Which type of offence? What's actually driving the increase? Otherwise the overall figure says nothing at all.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 2. What's the source?
Is this really a “historic record”?
A young company announces: “We hit a record: 500,000 downloads of our app in three months!” This is only its third year in existence. Its two best previous quarters had 50,000 and 100,000 downloads.
- Technically yes, but the record only spans three years
- No, 500,000 is less than the true record, which is a million
- Yes, and it proves the app is the market leader
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Technically yes, but the record only spans three years
A “record” over just three years is lightweight marketing: it is a short window in which to call anything historic, and what it really describes is a young company's first growth streak. If the app had existed for ten years with a flat trend before this spike, that would be a real record. The word “historic” gives weight to something that hasn't earned it. The move: check how much time the record actually spans.
Related reflex(es): 3. What's the date? · 9. Does the number have context?
Why is this raw number hard to judge on its own?
An NGO report states: “2.3 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. That's enormous!” No context about the world's population, no comparison offered anywhere.
- Because an NGO can't really count that high
- Because 2.3 billion is such a huge number that it must be a serious problem
- Because the total it comes out of is never given
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because the total it comes out of is never given
A raw number with no scale for comparison just floats in a vacuum: without the world's population you cannot tell whether it means 30% or 90%. 2.3 billion out of roughly 8 billion works out to about 29%, which means most of the world does have access. It's serious, but not universal. The move: always look for the denominator (the total). What percentage does this represent? Compared with what?
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 6. Too good to be true?
How can two papers say the opposite thing?
One newspaper writes: “Median pay dropped 3% this year.” Another, at the very same time: “Pay rose by an average of 2% this year.” Neither one is lying.
- Because the year isn't over yet for one of the papers
- One of the two must be wrong
- Because an average can rise while the median falls
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because an average can rise while the median falls
The average and the median don't tell the same story. If executives get a 50% raise while 90% of workers earn 5% less, the average climbs, dragged up by the top earners, while the median (the middle figure) falls, because most people are earning less. Very high salaries can move an average a long way on their own. That's why you need both. The move: notice whether a figure is an “average” or a “median.” If it's an average, ask for the median too, and vice versa.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context?
Medium
What's off about the causal story here?
A news article announces: “Study: drinking a glass of orange juice a day reduces wrinkles by 45%!” Further down: “A team of dermatologists tracked the habits of 1,200 women over two years and measured changes in their skin.”
- The study ran for too long
- Correlation isn't causation: other habits travel with the juice
- The sample is too small to support such a big conclusion
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Correlation isn't causation: other habits travel with the juice
Seeing two things together (drinking juice and having fewer wrinkles) doesn't prove that one causes the other. Women who choose to drink juice may also be the ones who drink plenty of water, use skincare, sleep well, live with less stress, or simply have favourable genetics. The factors are all tangled together, and juice is one detail in a healthier lifestyle overall. This is the classic correlation-versus-causation mix-up. The move: look for the hidden variables. What else could explain the link?
Related reflex(es): 5. Who else is saying it? · 2. What's the source?
What's the methodological trap here?
A researcher publishes: “67% of social media users feel lonelier after an hour of use.” He asked participants every evening whether they felt lonely, right after having them scroll a short-video app for an hour.
- 67% isn't a high enough number to generalise from
- Scrolling on command isn't normal use
- The study only lasted one evening
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Scrolling on command isn't normal use
People who agree to take part in this kind of study are agreeing to scroll to order, which is not how anyone normally uses an app. And asking “do you feel lonely?” immediately after a loneliness-focused test shapes the answer: measuring the feeling changes the feeling. That is what's called an expectation bias, and the study is built to confirm itself. The move: ask what normal life looked like before the study. Was there a baseline? How do we really know 67% are lonely?
Related reflex(es): 3. What's the date? · 1. Who is speaking?
Why doesn't this 28% drop mean anything?
A city council announces: “Crime is down 28% this year compared with last year!” Digging further, you find that last year saw a major crackdown campaign with heavy reporting. This year, police were told to issue fewer fines and more warnings instead.
- Because 28% isn't a big enough number to be reliable
- Because one year isn't enough time to draw conclusions
- Because the counting method changed, not the streets
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because the counting method changed, not the streets
Official numbers are shaped by how they're gathered. If the instruction becomes “stop fining minor offences,” those offences vanish from the count but not from the streets: fewer cases are logged, not fewer cases happening, and the situation on the ground may even have got worse while the statistics fell by pure definition. It's a classic move in policing and health statistics: change how you measure without saying so. The move: find out what changed in the method. Who's logging the cases? What were they told to do?
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 9. Does the number have context?
How does this comparison rig the results?
An ad for a phone battery claims: “Our battery lasts 40% longer!” Reading the fine print: “Compared to an older model from a competing brand, measured with the screen off and network disabled.”
- The test conditions are unrealistic, and the rival model is old
- It's fair: a battery that lasts longer is simply a better battery
- The battery can't really last 40% longer than claimed
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The test conditions are unrealistic, and the rival model is old
A manufacturer wants its number to look as dramatic as possible. It picks the weakest opponent (an old rival model), the most favourable condition (screen off, network disabled) and its best possible showing. Nobody uses a phone with the screen off, so the test says nothing about your phone in normal use. This is called cherry-picking: handpicking the results that flatter you. The move: read the test conditions in the fine print. If they are strange, or clearly tilted towards the seller, the number means nothing.
Related reflex(es): 7. What is it selling me? · 2. What's the source?
What should you conclude from this 200% figure?
A report states: “Food-related accidents in the city have jumped 200% in a year.” Checking further: the city recently opened a reporting centre for food poisoning that made filing a report much easier. Before that, people mostly didn't bother reporting at all.
- It mostly reflects a change in how reports are counted
- You'd need 300% for this to be a genuine problem
- There really are three times as many accidents now
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: It mostly reflects a change in how reports are counted
What's rising is visibility, not necessarily real danger. When you make it easy to report something, reports go up: that's a pure counting effect, called a statistical artefact. Real accidents may have ticked up slightly, but mainly we are seeing what was already there, because the year before people stayed quiet or never filed at all. The move: whenever a number jumps sharply, check what changed in how it's measured before declaring a crisis. A new rule? A new tool? An awareness campaign? That often explains most of the increase.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?
Does this 15% figure really reflect discrimination for doing the same job?
A magazine's headline: “Women earn 15% less than men!” The number comes from median income reported across every category combined: employees, freelancers, retirees, and more. Women make up proportionally more of the retiree group (lower income) and fewer of the very top earners.
- No, it's simply because there are more women than men overall
- Yes, this is direct proof of discrimination
- No: it blends salaries, pensions and freelance income
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: it blends salaries, pensions and freelance income
A pay gap exists and is well documented, but this particular number inflates it artificially by mixing populations that don't belong together: a median retirement income is not comparable to a salary, and retirees earn less in general. Within salaried work alone the gap would be much smaller, though still there. The raw headline number caricatures the issue. The move: ask for a like-for-like comparison. Same sector? Same experience level? Same hours?
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 2. What's the source?
What should you think of this 6% figure?
A newspaper claims: “Average incomes rose 6% over the past decade.” It turns out the figure includes heavy inflation: real purchasing power barely moved, and it actually dropped for lower incomes.
- 6% is very little for ten years
- Technically true, but inflation ate nearly all of it
- It's good news: 6% over ten years is genuine progress
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Technically true, but inflation ate nearly all of it
Nominal statistics (in today's currency) can rise while real statistics (purchasing power) stagnate or fall. If inflation ate five points of a six-point increase, the real gain is about one point, and for lower incomes it was negative. This is a fashionable trick: show numbers that shine on paper but weigh less in people's pockets. The move: always ask for the real, inflation-adjusted figure. And if that adjustment is never mentioned, it's often a sign the nominal number would be embarrassing.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 7. What is it selling me?
How does this 10x figure lie?
A young company announces: “We've grown 10x in three years!” No other data is given. Digging into its own figures, you find it had 2 customers in year 1, 15 in year 2 and 20 in year 3. The announcement quotes only the first year and the last.
- It doesn't lie, it's mathematically accurate
- All the growth happened in year 2; year 3 was flat
- 10x is too much to be believable
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: All the growth happened in year 2; year 3 was flat
A start-to-finish ratio inflates things: starting at 2 and ending at 20 sounds spectacular, and it is arithmetically true. But if the real story is 2, then 15, then 20, growth is running out of steam, and “10x in three years” dramatises a curve that is levelling off. A company slowing down in year 3 after a sprint in year 1 doesn't look like a company growing steadily. The move: demand the year-by-year breakdown, not just the start-to-finish ratio.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 3. What's the date?
Can both claims be true at the same time?
A sports article claims: “Players coached by A win 20% fewer matches than the ones coached by B: A is a bad coach!” Another source adds: “At equal skill levels, the two coaches get just as good results.” In fact, A mostly works with beginners, B with experienced players.
- No, one of them has to be wrong
- 20% and “just as good results” can't both be true
- Yes: they don't coach the same kind of player
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Yes: they don't coach the same kind of player
The worst trap in any comparison: the groups aren't identical. A's players are mostly beginners, who win less, inevitably; B's are experienced, who win more. Mix them together and the 20% gap becomes an artefact: it measures the players' starting level, not the coach's talent. At equal skill levels the two are worth the same. This is called confounding bias. The move: in every comparison, look for what sets the groups apart (age, level, starting point). Otherwise the number is poisoned.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 9. Does the number have context?
What should you conclude from this 87% figure?
A source claims: “A researcher found that a natural plant extract fights cancer with 87% effectiveness!” You read the original paper: the study covers 34 lab mice, not humans.
- That's good news, there's real hope here
- 87% seems suspiciously high
- It's a mouse result, not a human one
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: It's a mouse result, not a human one
Lab results in animals matter for exploring possibilities, but they almost never carry over exactly to humans: the number describes 34 mice, and stretching it to people is an enormous leap. Our bodies are far more complex machines, and something that works in a test tube can be ineffective, or even toxic, in a person. That's exactly why clinical trials exist. The move: find out what stage the research is at. Lab? Animals? Humans? The meaning of a number changes completely with the stage.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 8. Is the expert really an expert?
Tough
Is this really an explosion?
A polling institute announces: “Reports of online abuse have exploded: up 75% in three years!” You look for the raw numbers: the site received 4 reports the first year, 6 the second, 7 the third. Nobody else is reporting any such explosion.
- No, because the survey was conducted online
- No: going from 4 cases to 7 is barely visible
- Yes, 75% is massive
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: going from 4 cases to 7 is barely visible
A dramatic percentage on a tiny base is worth very little: 75% on 4 cases means 3 more cases. Going from 4 to 7 isn't an explosion, it's statistical noise, and on a real base of thousands nobody would mention it. From 4,000 to 7,000 would be a genuine increase. The move: always look for the raw numbers first. If the base is tiny, the percentage tells you nothing.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context?
Why is this average misleading?
A school announces: “The average age of our job-placement students is 39, perfect for our continuing-education and work-study programmes!” In reality, the group has 200 students: 80 are between 16 and 24, and 120 are between 45 and 60.
- Because the real students are younger than they used to be
- Because nobody in the group is anywhere near 39
- Because 39 is too old for higher education
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because nobody in the group is anywhere near 39
An average drawn from two far-apart groups invents a phantom person in the middle: 80 students around 21 and 120 around 51 do average out at 39, and not one student is 39. The school is mostly very young students and near-retirees, but the average claims a middle-aged group, masking two radically different populations. This is a classic trap in HR and demographic marketing. The move: ask for the median and the breakdown by age bracket. That tells the real story.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context?
Can you conclude that studying late CAUSES better grades?
A newspaper headline: “Studying at night means better grades. The more students study after 8pm, the better they do!” The figure comes from a real observed correlation: night-owls average 2 points higher.
- Yes, the correlation is measured and real
- No, because grades never change
- No: it's the work ethic, not the hour
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: it's the work ethic, not the hour
Seeing two things together (studying late and good grades) doesn't prove one causes the other. Strong students study more overall, including at night and including other, healthier hours: the late hour is a trace of the effort, not the cause of the success, and cutting into sleep to copy it would likely backfire. This is the classic mistake, confusing correlation with causation. The move: always look for the hidden variable, here work ethic and discipline. What else could explain the link?
Related reflex(es): 5. Who else is saying it? · 9. Does the number have context?
Is the growth really exponential?
A chart showing audience growth displays a curve that shoots up spectacularly. The data points are: 10 (year 1), 100 (year 2), 1,000 (year 3). Nothing on the chart says whether the Y-axis is linear or logarithmic: the scale is never labelled anywhere.
- Impossible to say: the axis is unlabelled
- Yes, the curve looks spectacular
- No, 1,000 isn't that big a number
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Impossible to say: the axis is unlabelled
A logarithmic scale flattens out large numbers, so the exact same data looks smooth on one axis and explosive on the other. Here the audience is multiplied by ten every year: on a logarithmic axis those three points sit on a perfectly straight line, steady growth; on a linear axis the same three points look like an explosion. Without knowing which scale is in use, the shape of the curve tells you nothing at all, so reading the axis is not a detail, it is the whole exercise. This particular chart might be perfectly honest, but it hides the key to reading itself. The move: always check whether the Y-axis is linear or logarithmic. And if whoever's presenting it forgets to say, that's often not an accident.
Related reflex(es): 4. Does the image show what they claim? · 9. Does the number have context?
Should this be alarming?
A health channel announces: “The risk of a rare side effect from this medication has DOUBLED: it went from 0.001% to 0.002%.” The headline: “Risk multiplied by two, watch out!”
- No: twice almost nothing is still almost nothing
- No, because no risk at all is acceptable
- Yes, a risk that doubles is serious
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: twice almost nothing is still almost nothing
Saying “the risk has doubled” makes it dramatic. Saying “it goes from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000,” which is one extra case per 100,000 doses, makes it clear. Both are true, but they reveal very differently: this is the relative-risk-versus-absolute-risk trap, a classic of fear marketing that amplifies the ratio while hiding the real scale. It is honest mathematically and deeply misleading all the same. The move: always demand the risk in absolute numbers. How many people are genuinely affected, out of how many?
Related reflex(es): 6. Too good to be true? · 9. Does the number have context?
How do you explain this gap?
A market survey announces: “73% of consumers say they'd be willing to buy an eco-friendly brand even if it costs 15% more.” The survey itself is methodologically sound. And yet, in shops, eco-labelled products of the same type capture only 8% of sales.
- The 73% must be shopping somewhere else
- The survey is lying: people really only care about price
- The survey measures intentions, not purchases
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: The survey measures intentions, not purchases
Saying “I'd pay more for the greater good” is easy. Actually paying more when it hits the monthly budget is another matter entirely, and at the checkout people go for the cheaper option. This is the classic weakness of surveys: they measure stated intentions, not real behaviour. Life is tight, and values often bend under the weight of the wallet. The move: be wary of “would you” surveys. Look for actual behaviour: what do people really buy, and at what price?
Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 6. Too good to be true?
Is this comparison valid?
A research group compares two regions: “Region A has 45% of its population with a university degree, Region B only 28%. That's a massive education gap!” Later, you find out that A is a large urban centre and B is rural, and that the definition of “resident” includes or excludes students depending on the year measured.
- No, because averages never change
- No: the two areas aren't measured alike
- Yes, 45% versus 28% is a real, meaningful gap
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: No: the two areas aren't measured alike
Two regions with opposite geographies, economies and demographics don't compare cleanly on a raw ratio: urban against rural, a shifting population against a stable one, and a definition of “resident” that moves from year to year. You'd need the same boundaries, the same definition, the same age brackets and the same measurement year. Region A attracts young, educated urban residents; Region B has an older population. That's normal, but it isn't an apples-to-apples gap. The move: before any comparison, check that both sides measure exactly the same thing.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 2. What's the source?
What's the headline's real sin?
A headline announces: “17,000 cases of this syndrome since the start of the decade!” Reading further: that's a nine-year stretch, and the cases are spread out evenly across it. In reality: roughly 1,900 cases a year, or about 5 a day nationwide.
- It's a made-up number, 17,000 is too high to be real
- It piles nine years into a single sentence
- 17,000 over nine years is actually pretty low, so it's not a big deal
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: It piles nine years into a single sentence
Adding up years of data creates an impressive-sounding number. 17,000 sounds like an emergency; 17,000 over nine years works out to about 1,900 a year, or roughly 5 a day nationwide, which tells a very different story: routine, predictable, under control. Presenting a lump sum without saying so sells urgency where there is a steady pattern. This is a classic trap in health, crime and accident reporting. The move: always check what time period a big number covers, then divide.
Related reflex(es): 9. Does the number have context? · 3. What's the date?
Why does “historic record” overstate things here?
An economist publishes a note: “This year: a historic growth record for the region!” You check the available data: it only goes back three years. The values are: year 1: 3.1%, year 2: 2.8%, year 3: 3.4%. It genuinely is the highest of the three, but that is all there is to compare it against.
- Because 3.4% is a small number
- Because growth is bound to slow down again afterwards
- Because three years of data can't make a record
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Because three years of data can't make a record
The word “historic” demands depth over time. A record over three years is just a fluctuation: 3.4% is indeed the highest of the three, but that is the peak of a series far too short to call historic. Thirty years of data with this year on top would be a genuine record. This is a classic move in finance and economics: people call something a record based only on the period they happen to have data for. The move: always ask how far back the series goes. The shorter it is, the less the word “record” carries.
Related reflex(es): 3. What's the date? · 9. Does the number have context?
Is this figure reliable enough to draw conclusions from?
A government agency publishes: “According to the annual survey of 8,500 households (margin of error ±0.3 points), the relative poverty rate this year is 13.7%, up 0.8 points from last year. Methodology: national statistics agency survey, scope: mainland territory.”
- No, because it comes from the government: it must be biased
- No, because 13.7% sounds like a suspiciously round number
- Yes, largely: solid sample, stated margin of error, open method
See the answer and the explanation
The right answer: Yes, largely: solid sample, stated margin of error, open method
This case is the opposite of the previous ones: a genuinely solid number. A traceable source, an open methodology, an honestly stated limitation (the margin of error), a clear definition and scope, and a valid year-over-year comparison. You can trust this and use it for real decisions. Not every number is a trap; this one is built to be used. The move: learn to recognise well-presented numbers. Reputable source plus visible methodology plus stated limits equals fine to use.
Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 9. Does the number have context?