Done properly that is what a sample is intended to be (in reflecting the relevant details of the population being studied).
So, as I thought, with this response to HH it is clear that you don't really understand sampling, the related statistics or research methods in general.
Gordon,
I am sure that sampling the few can never really reflect the masses.
What my reply does not and cannot do is show any lack of understanding.
My view still remains the same and shows that it has NOTHING TO DO with the amount used for the sample in that it did not and cannot reflect the true result it tries to claim.
What I also know is that NO ONE no matter where they are from or what research department they belong to, have the right method for saying Britains are giving up booze when they ask their questions of 8,000 people.
It is illogical for the sampling/questioning of 8,000 people to be an exact method of reflecting the other millions of people.
How many of the 8,000 were child drinkers underage in their teens? So many reasons why just choosing 8,000 people
presumably men and women of the legal age for drinking can never reflect the truth about what Britains drink.
Personally, being a human being is being able to think for ourselves and know why such a survery means absolutely NOTHING
in the scheme of all things in reality.
They could not and did not include all the possibilities when it came to choosing whom they would ask and what they would ask.