Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NorthImpossible8906 t1_iy8fu5c wrote

less likely THAN?

you forgot to finish your statement. When you use a word like 'less' or 'more' it always needs a 'than'.

I'd suggest putting a total in there, like another bar graph with the total religious people (in 1st gen and 2nd gen).

I'd suggest putting the non-religious in a different color, and separated out from the list. That particular piece is showing a very different result (ie. the opposite0, but it has the same colors and is placed in the same list.

7

ploki122 t1_iy8ryf6 wrote

>you forgot to finish your statement. When you use a word like 'less' or 'more' it always needs a 'than'.

You can always assume that it's "less than the opposite" therefore, Immigrant children born in Canada are less likely to follow religion than not.

3

NorthImpossible8906 t1_iy8totn wrote

> Immigrant children born in Canada are less likely to follow religion than not.

That is actually the wrong conclusion, so you inadvertently proved my point.

In fact, I don't understand your statement. Immigrant children are less likely to follow religion than not follow religion? ? ? ?

Here, if you decode all the graphics, the conclusion is that the 2nd generation children are less likely to follow religion than 1st generation children. That's what the graphics show with their labels, but I suspect that isn't what OP meant. Maybe it is that 1st generation of children born in canada of immigrant parents are less religion than their parents (the immigrants born abroad).

7

dolphinater t1_iy9mb50 wrote

pretty sure first generation is the actual immigrants born abroad and not first generation of children born to immigrants

3