Response to Discussion 5a
Random sampling is typically incorporated to tap the fleeting remarks of the participants of a particular research suite. In this regard, by the constraints of the sampling technique itself, the researchers are obliged to depend on the proportionality of authenticity of the opinions in terms of significance rather than seeking whether the information is exactly authentic or not. For the given instance, in a reflective consideration the first outcome is more significant (9 within 10 people are pro-life) rather than the second one. To some extent, it is very evident since the percentage of identical response associated with the first remark is more than the second one.
The population of sample is quite less in the first remark as compared to the second. In this regard while taking refuge of statistics, it can be said that the proportionality of the response being authentic and significant is comparatively more in the first case. This statement can be justified by the famous statistical axiom and several established considerations that the vulnerability of the presence of missing data is comparatively less in the first case due to the tiny scope of the population (Smith, 2016).
It is an exaggeration to mention that 55% is obviously less than 90%. Furthermore, 90% against 1000 heads is definitely greater than the 90% against 10 heads. Thus, it can be concluded from the above discussion that not only the percentage or proportion of a certain remark is mandatory to deduce. On the contrary, the size of the population subjected towards the enquiry is also imperative information to be aware of while judging the comparative significance of the responses (Loeys et al. 2014).
In summary, it is very evident and almost an exaggeration to admit that the first remark is more significant. However, it can also be stated in this regard that, apart from the proportion of identical responses, the size of population is also a cardinal variable to judge the authenticity of a certain remark.