Just the ( assortment width and perceived brand image ) is enough for me to think that the survey itself is flawed.
I agree with @shadowfax
There are only a few large american cities with excellent public transportation systems
I live in a huge american city . . . Los Angeles . . . and the public transportation system leaves a lot to be desired
Somebody without a car in Los Angeles is limited to a degree, in my opinion
“Assortment width and perceived brand image?” Is that supposed to mean that wider cars are seen as higher quality? 'Cause that’s what it sounds like.
Gosh… okay
@VOLVO_V70: Yes, I do believe there are (partly pretty relevant) surveys that haven’t been conducted yet.
@the_same_mountainbik: I definitely do not think I would get an F.
@Barkydog: The brexit item has methodical reasons and is purposely unrelated to the study. Unfortunately, I can’t post the reason in the thread, since other potential participants and their answers could be biased.
@bing: Thanks for your opinion. There are neither right nor wrong answers.
@shadowfax: Could you give me an example which questions are unclear? The question with regard to individual transporting is unrelated to the central investigation of the study. It is more or less a control item, in oder to check if the participants pay attention. The core can be investigated with US costumers.
@VOLVO_V70: May be you are unfamiliar with the term, but assortment width represents the number of different product types offered by a retailer. A brand image is always the consumer-sided perception of a brand’s identity. Consequently, the brand image is a subjective perception of a brand.
you don’t use technobabble terms in a survey for the general public. 99% of the population don’t know that term.
Just using the term “transporting” instead of “carry” indicates your bias towards technobabble.
Examples, both of unclear translations and unclear questions:
A car shouldn’t be used for short distances.
Define “short.” 1km? 10?
Presumed you’d like to obtain a car, and ogle with some BMW’s:
While I can figure out the meaning, the horrendous translation is distracting. “Assuming you want to buy a car, and you look at some BMW’s:”
The brand gaps between what should be according to them and what really is.
“There is a difference between what the brand claims, and what is actually true.”
“Extremely,” not “extremly,” “declare,” not “declared” (this would be the same as the difference between “erklären” and “erklärt”).
By selecting “neither”, or the middle value of the scale, you’ll indicate that you aren’t conform with both extremes.
“Choose “neither” if you don’t agree with either choice.”
These can be figured out, if the survey taker wants to, but when you’re asking people to do something for free, you shouldn’t make them figure out what you really mean. Plus, if they are wrong about what you really mean, that will skew their answers.
etc.
Always assume survey takers are unfamiliar with everything. 
1 Like
@shadowfax: Thanks for the feedback.
– It is okay if people answer according to their subjective perception of “short distance”.
– “Looking” at a car would imply that people are already willed to visit a retailer/acquire information/compare models/etc. while “ogling” should actually express only a general preference for the cars.
– “Extremely” and “declared” definitely have to be fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
– "By selecting “neither”, or the middle value of the scale, you’ll indicate that you aren’t conform with both extremes."
The context makes it pretty clear, doesn’t it?
I won’t stoop to making baseless allegations, but your assumptions simply cannot stand without a response. You were the person who brought-up the topic of “kicking-out” unpopular elected officials. I don’t pretend to understand the ins and outs of all of the various parliamentary systems in Europe, so I offered the examples of how we do it legally–in The US–via measures that are contained in our Constitution.
I strongly suggest that you read Article 1, Section 3, Paragraphs 6 & 7, and also Amendment 25, Section 4, of The US Constitution.
“Extralegal”?
Hardly!
While we don’t have the relatively rapid removal from office that apparently exists in those European Parliamentary systems, we in The US do have legal means of removing officials who have fallen into disfavor for one reason or another. What juncture in public discourse have we reached when mentioning two parts of The US Constitution can be interpreted to be treasonous?
I will conclude by stating that you are seeing things in my earlier post that are simply not there.
Boys, boys, I’m afraid I started it by not properly reading Barky’s quote on Brexit. I apologize. All I can say is back in 1770, some people supported the King and others revolted. The snake pit is being poked and there is great hissing from the pit and a few bites along the way. Some want to leave the snakes alone, others want the pit emptied. This is really a historic time period. Every day more snakes are exposed and the hissing gets louder. Back to cars but I for one am crossing Ford off my list of potential brands to buy at this point. Enough said I guess about Henry and his decedents.
Few would question that crazy old Henry–despite his other positive traits–was a toxic anti-Semite of the first order, but…don’t the scriptures tell us that the son should not suffer for the sins of the father?
Yeah there is lots of stuff in there including the rantings of John. Certainly agree though that the sons should not have to pay for the faults of the father like in North Korea, but their current stand with the NFL and the Ford Foundation is not acceptable to me anyway. Bud reconsidered their sponsorship but Ford doubled down. Silly thing to do but it shows their colors. So nothing to do with Henry but he had his own issues.