That is just pure nonsense and shows you don't understand what you are talking about. To see the effects of a shift in sample size you have to compare the change in sample sizes in areas with high breeding rates with the change in sample size in the areas with low breeding rates ,which is what I did and it proved that breeding rates did not decrease due to a shift in sample size and location. ,which you failed to comprehend. So maybe you weren't lying and just didn't understand that very simple explanation.
What is pure nonsense was the example you posted. Youinserted your own assumptions in your calculations. In response, I posted an example pointing out how your doing that skewed the results to your favor.
RSB pointed out that sample size had shifted. He didnt attempt to create a different result. He merely pointed out that the statewide results were an avergae created when the input had shifted. you responded by posting an intentionally distorted example, inserting informationyou made up, that was proven meaningless.