I’ll preface this by saying I didn’t read the article, nor did I read any of the studies and underlying methodology so it has probably been addressed and corrected for but like a few of the other commentors have mentioned, by measuring it based upon consumption of a single item, it would be hard to see if it really just showed an indicator of overall consumption as opposed to a singular food being the cause.

Lets say one of our sample respondents consume 350g of red meat on average in a week and that consisted of approximately 10% of their diet (by weight). Compare that to a person who had 350g of red meat on average in a week and it consisted of approximately 5% of their diet (by weight). This would be an Extreme example but the second person is literally consuming twice the amount of food (by mass).

This seems to be a strategic engagement inducing comment but I’ll bite.

One additional piece of obvious information will probably adjust initial impressions of the above comment. So Harris “won” 20 states and Trump 30… so using some napkin math and by looking at that statement on it’s surface (I noticed you didn’t actually make a claim one way or the other) that means… Harris states, on average, generate roughly 30% more GDP than Trump states.

Edit: Punctuation

Edit Edit: Harris is 19 + DC and Trump 31 so it’s actually closer to 32-34% (If you count DC or not).

Because the audience is not his future co-workers, it’s the managers and hiring staff who have problems that they need solved and are aware of the existing limitations that they have within the team.