Note: In this 30- to 45-minute in-class activity, students explore the big rhetorical differences that can result from small changes in phrasing when statistical claims are relayed in words. In small groups, students first brainstorm multiple ways to phrase the same statistic. Then they evaluate which of the phrases is most vs. least accurate; most accessible to non-experts vs. richest in scientific ethos; and most effective at minimizing vs. emphasizing the problem.
Introduction
In her article “Rhetorical Numbers: A Case for Quantitative Writing in the Composition Classroom”, scholar Joanna Wolfe tells an anecdote about meeting a pregnant friend for coffee. The friend had read an alarming statistic – that one in fifty pregnancies in women over 35 involved fetal abnormalities. But she felt reassured when her doctor told her there was a 97% chance that her fetus would have no problems. Joanna Wolfe pointed out to her friend that 97% is actually a worse statistic than one in fifty, which represents a 2% chance of a problem (a 98% chance that everything would be okay). However, as Wolfe points out, phrasing makes a huge difference in how statistics are interpreted:
Why was one number alarming and another, slightly worse, number reassuring? As my friend said, when she read one in fifty, she thought, “I know fifty people.” It was easy to imagine one of these fifty experiencing a tragic event and to further imagine that this one unlucky person might be her. Thus, one in fifty is concrete, something one can visualize. One in fifty represents a number in the language of everyday lived experience. It makes the risk seem real, tangible. By contrast, 97 percent is reassuringly abstract and scientific sounding. It is also a number that years of school have conditioned us to equate with success: a grade of 97 percent is an occasion for self-congratulation, a reason to temporarily rest on our laurels.
This example from medical statistics illustrates how numbers have pathos: the same number has a different emotional resonance with its audience depending on how it is presented. One rhetorical figure takes the concrete, fear-provoking structure of one in X will . . . while the other takes the more abstract, scientific-sounding structure of there is an X percent probability of absence. One alarms while the other reassures. Thus, the statement You have a one in twenty chance of winning excites us with its possibility, makes us grab for that raffle ticket, while the equivalent There is a 95 percent probability of losing suggests that playing is a fool’s errand, that to hand over money is to throw it against the law of scientific probabilities.
In other words, translating a ratio to a percentage is not just a mathematical operation, but also a rhetorical practice in which artistic appeals are manipulated.
Activity: Part 1
Ask students to consider Wolfe’s reasoning. In small groups, have them apply it to this sample statistic:
- 68% of adults aged 65 years or older have gum disease (Eke et al. 2015.).
Groups should brainstorm as many ways as possible to communicate that statistic in a sentence. One person from each group should write them all down. All sentences must be honest and accurate, but they do not have to be as precise as the original. Thus, for the purposes of this activity, it’s not okay to replace “47%” with “half,” because 47% is not 50%. However, replacing “47%” with “almost half” is fine, because the word “almost” indicates that the actual number is slightly less than 50%.
Activity: Part 2
Ask students to copy and paste their group’s list into a Google Doc or similar collaborative writing space. Once all the groups have uploaded their lists, ask students to delete exact duplicates, leaving only one copy (it doesn’t matter which). Only consider two sentences duplicates if the wording is exactly the same. Then, assign each group one of the following characteristics and have them read through all the lists to choose 1-2 sentences that best exemplify the characteristic. The group characteristics are:
- Most accurate phrasing (=most correct)
- Least accurate phrasing (=least correct)
- Most approachable phrasing (=easiest for non-experts to understand)
- Most professional phrasing (conveys the greatest scientific ethos)
- Best phrasing if you want to emphasize the problem
- Best phrasing if you want to minimize the problem
Activity: Discussion
Each group should present their choice of sentence(s) to the class and explain the reasoning behind the choice. In the discussion, the entire class should seek to uncover underlying principles that govern the accuracy, the approachability, the emphasis, and the ethos of one’s choice of words.
A key takeaway from this lesson is the idea that the wording of a statistic can have a huge impact on how audiences receive and perceive it.