"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:YwaRj.139457$yE1.111620@attbi_s21...
No...that's a "false alternative".

In what way?

It's a classic breech of logic - it portrays that X would not happen at all
if not Y. It deliberately confuses a _convenience_ with a _necessity_.

The number is likely correct, but it's relatively meaningless.