This article is flawed!

For example, the first one regarding the representativeness of CR readers. Why do we need the sample to be representative in this case? If general public is stupid, then we want a sample that is equally stupid to guide us in selecting reliable cars? CR readers are wealthier and more educated, so they are smarter shoppers and their opinions are what we need for selecting reliable cars. Does that make sense?

所有跟帖： 

• No. CR's reliability data come from its readers. That's why the -yanif- ♂ (477 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 04:25:16

• But those educated people who answered the survey are owners of -Yangtze430030- ♂ (1276 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 07:00:50

• You are so naive o_o -隱睾- ♂ (61 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 08:22:19

• Can't agree with you more! -Yangtze430030- ♂ (0 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 09:04:21

• 本壇有”恨車一族“ o_o -隱睾- ♂ (31 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 09:56:36

• 看看蓋勒普（Gallup)如何統計和發表其統計結果就知道CR的方法太小兒科了。 -southmountainer- ♂ (4679 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 18:17:00

• 是傳教式銷售，CR花很多很多年建立的客戶群，客戶，應該很多老客戶是80年代90年代買過日本車，使用堅信CR說的 -soccer88- ♂ (0 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 07:04:44

• I might not be an educated person but -MoonRiverMe- ♂ (168 bytes) () 11/12/2014 postreply 10:34:27