Question

The following excerpt is from an article “State reports find fraud rate of 42% in auto body repairs,” published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper in September of 2003.

The Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), a branch of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, investigates complaints about collision-repair shops in California. “For the past two years,... consumers have been steered to BAR to determine if their cars had been properly fixed by collision-repair shops across the state. Of the 1,315 vehicles inspected in the two-year BAR study that ended in June, 42 percent were overbilled for labor not performed or parts not supplied, Consumer Affairs Director Kathleen Hamilton said at a news conference last week.... The average loss was $812.”

Is the following critique of the BAR study valid or invalid?

The article continues, “John Walcher, vice president of Caliber Collision Centers, a chain of auto-repair shops, called the BAR report ‘statistically insignificant.’ During the study period, more than 3 million cars probably were repaired in California’s body shops–but BAR ‘looked at only 1,300 cars that met their criteria,’ he said.”

Valid

Invalid

Answer 1

Valid . This is often not a true random examination however a complaint -driven examination. David mcClune, chief of the california autobody association is correct in saying this statement. The results of this study cannot be projectrd upon industry as whole. If only 1 company is creating fraud that doesn't means that all firms ar fraud. different company could also be honest and company that ar operating in honestness and financial aid.

For the past 2 years,... customers are steered to BAR to work out if their cars had been properly fastened by collision-repair outlets across the state. Of the 1,315 vehicles inspected within the biennial BAR study that led to Gregorian calendar month, forty two percent were overbilled for labor not performed or components not equipped. they're deceving the buyer that's not smart policy