“These giants, averaged 23 to 27 millimeters in length, nearly double the size of crickets used in Mainland China.”
Is “averaged” used correctly here?
|
“These giants, averaged 23 to 27 millimeters in length, nearly double the size of crickets used in Mainland China.” Is “averaged” used correctly here? |
||||
|
|
|
All that Richard says is true, but the problem is not so much with the arithmetic meaning of average, as it is the punctuation or grammar. Here are two possible alternatives, (which are both grammatical, unlike your sentence):
or
|
|||||
|
|
Agree with Jim, but I think a more fitting usage without the comma would be
|
|||||
|
|
Your sample's form is
where X, Y are noun phrases and P, Q are numbers. The only verb in the sample is averaged. It occurs in a phrase that is punctuated like an appositive in the sense of a noun phrase "placed with another as an explanatory equivalent ... having the same syntactic function in the sentence." But "averaged P to Q" is not a noun phrase, so cannot be an appositive in this sense. Some rewritings to deal with that problem (with verbs in bold italics) were suggested in previous answers:
Note that these sentences are of muddled meaning because an average is a single number, not a range. Of course that single number may lie within some stated range. When an average is given in a form like "25 mm ± 2 mm", conventionally it represents a claim that at some previously-stated level of confidence (eg 95%) the population mean is within specified limits, for example 23 to 27 mm. The convention does not extend to treating the gauche "averaged 23 to 27 mm" the same as the proper "an average of 25 mm ± 2 mm". |
|||||
|
|
No, but it is a common usage. It combines the actual meaning of average (aka arithmetic mean) with the domain of the set of values, with the outliers ignored. So I would infer from your example that 99% of the crickets are between 23 and 27 mm. Cheers |
|||||||
|