This is sort of an open ended question but I wanna be clear. Given a sufficient population you might be able to learn something (this is the open part) but whatever you learn about your population, when is it ever applicable to a member of the population?
From what I understand of statistics it's never applicable to a single member of a population, however, all to often I find myself in a discussion where the other person goes "I read that 10% of the world population has this disease" and continue to conclude that every tenth person in the room has this disease.
I understand that ten people in this room is not a big enough sample for the statistic to be relevant but apparently a lot don't.
Then there's this thing about large enough samples. You only need to probe a large enough population to get reliable statistics. This though, isn't it proportional to the complexity of the statistic? If I'm measuring something that's very rare, doesn't that mean I need a much bigger sample to be able to determine the relevance for such a statistic?
The thing is, I truly question the validity of any newspaper or article when statistics is involved, they way it's used to build confidence.
That's a bit of background.
Back to the question, in what ways can you NOT or may you NOT use statistics to form an argument. I negated the question because I'd like to find out more about common misconceptions regarding statistics.