a8bmiles t1_ixfqaz9 wrote

Yes but see, you included the words "that is flammable" and reduced ambiguity. If you were the OP you would have said "50% of the island was on fire".

Do you see the difference?


a8bmiles t1_ixfpbgv wrote

At least my way is clearly disingenuous and might cause someone to question the statement. His "most of Australia burned" statement is just believable enough to promulgate false information and result in someone believing that most of the land mass was on fire when that's obviously not true.

If he didn't want to be misleading he could have easily done so by adding a few more words to his statement.


a8bmiles t1_ixemw1h wrote

Oh are we just throwing away data to make the results look better? Sure thing then!

"A couple years ago, 100% of Australia burned*"

^(* = measurement includes only areas that caught on fire)