# Pair One Named Case With a Population Statistic ## Claim Pairing one concrete named incident with an independently verifiable statistic lets an argument carry the emotional weight of the case without resting its validity on that case generalizing. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Useful for advocacy and persuasion writing — talks, internal proposals — where anecdote-as-evidence would otherwise be a fair objection. - Requires the statistic to support the broad claim on its own; if it only illustrates, the pairing is decoration and the objection stands. - The case supplies salience, the statistic supplies warrant — swapping those roles is the error this guards against. - Fails where no population-level measure exists, in which case the honest move is to present the case as a case. ## Evidence From Rose Kivuva's WordPress Accessibility Day 2025 session: a single named incident is paired with population-level accessibility statistics rather than carrying the argument alone. ## Links - [[Colour-Only Signalling Fails at Population Scale Not at the Margin]] — a worked instance — the prevalence figure is what converts a design complaint into a scale argument - [[A Ceiling Score Reported by the Scored Party Measures Test Fit]] — the adversarial counterpart: what to check before accepting someone else's supporting statistic - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Evidence & Claims Literacy MOC]] — the claims-literacy thread, on the building side rather than the auditing side.