In 1995, Derek Jeter's batting average was 0.250; in 1996, his batting average was 0.314. David Justice's batting average in 1995 was 0.253 and was 0.321 in 1996. The team statistician claims Jeter's overall average was better than Justice's average. What may make this claim possible?

Sampling error

Cause-and-effect relationship

Convenience error

Simpson's Paradox

Confounding

The correct option is;

Simpson Paradox

Step-by-step explanation:

The phenomenon whereby particular trends are prevalent in small data portions but are not evident or an inverse trend is observe when the portions are joined together is known as Simpson's paradox.

Whereby the data for calculating the bating averages as found online are given as follows;

Season,                       Derek Jeter                           David Justice

1995,                           12/48 = 0.250                         104/411 ≈ 0.253

1996,                           183/582 ≈ 0.314                      45/140 ≈ 0.321

The overall hits to the overall bats ratio are;

,         (183 + 12)/(582 + 48) ≈0.310   (104+45)/(411+140) = 0.27

Which shows that  Derek Jeter's overall average was better than Justice's average  

imma say 16%. sorry if its wrong. i'm doing the same stuff right now

step-by-step explanation: