BBM, and snipped for relevance.
This is a really great example of a factual statement, followed by a logical fallacy, or a fallacy of presumption. The conclusion "that is not indicative of an abundance of people who believe RZ's death was anything other than a suicide" is
not at all supported by the ABSENCE of donors.
Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The FACTUAL statement, "$5438 given by 56 donors" is just that-- a factual statement. One can only infer that the 56 donors who DID contribute in some way support the cause. You cannot use a null hypothesis to "prove" something from an unrelated set of criteria.
It is impossible to determine how many people that did NOT support the cause did not donate. I know that concept can be difficult for some to understand.
Null hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fundraising of any sort is a multifactorial process. It is a leap of logic to conclude "that is not indicative of an abundance of people who believe RZ's death was anything other than a suicide". That is a rather low level of logic and reasoning, IMO.
A casual perusal of many internet sites and comments will reveal that there is probably less than 5 people commenting regularly who believe RZ committed suicide. The comments after most articles (not a scientific sample, of course) run 99:1 (my estimate-- no link) in favor of murder as the answer to how Rebecca died. There is FAR more evidence that the "public" feels Rebecca was murdered, than the very few posts that support suicide.
Critical thinking is a skill. Logic is also a skill, as in the ability to lay out a logical argument. It's good to learn these skills, and practice them often. Keeps the gray matter functioning better, longer.
BTW, this is an awesome read! Paul and Elder rock!
Amazon.com: Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life (9780130647603): Richard Paul, Linda Elder: Books