Yes. I don’t know if you’ve taken any maths classes recently but 25,000 is a lot more than 1, and 5,000–10,000 (a conservative estimate of how many are children) is also a lot more than 1.
Therefore the point ‘a lot more children are dying from poverty’ is served exactly the same by 25,000 people as by 25,000 children. In exactly the same way as rounding the number up or down doesn’t make any difference to the argument.
I could equally have just said ‘thousands’ and the argument would be identical.
But you already know this. If this newspaper article had an error in the dates, or referred to a child (but the victim turned out to be 19), or mentioned they were from Oregon, when in fact it was Washington, you would not be trying to claim their whole argument is now redundant. So let’s cut the crap shall we?
Yes. I don’t know if you’ve taken any maths classes recently but 25,000 is a lot more than 1, and 5,000–10,000 (a conservative estimate of how many are children) is also a lot more than 1.
Therefore the point ‘a lot more children are dying from poverty’ is served exactly the same by 25,000 people as by 25,000 children. In exactly the same way as rounding the number up or down doesn’t make any difference to the argument.
I could equally have just said ‘thousands’ and the argument would be identical.
But you already know this. If this newspaper article had an error in the dates, or referred to a child (but the victim turned out to be 19), or mentioned they were from Oregon, when in fact it was Washington, you would not be trying to claim their whole argument is now redundant. So let’s cut the crap shall we?
“25,000 children”
Name one.