"Nope pages 17 through 20 does not answer any of that."

Awww... what happened? Were you not smart enough to put the explicitly specified **p.18**, mention of it being the location of the first relevant **graph** together to avoid making the rookie mistake of going by the file's page number rather than the report's page number? Rather appropriate considering we're discussing the impacts of poor quality of education, all you had to do was think a little, do a bit of deductive reasoning, realize there's a purpose for reports having a table of contents. Huh... okay, points in favor of your argument, I suppose.

Here, I'll make it so simple a second grader could find it for you: go to **FILE** page 4 and under where it says "List of figures," click on "1.1. Out-of-School children .... 18". Aaaand there ya go; nothing left now but to scroll and actually read the report, examine the graphs. You uh... you WILL read the report and examine the graphs, right?

"You are in your own delusion and have no practical life experience to go by."

And there's more weak ad hominem blah-blah. 😄

"Yes there is. It is within context."

So you're saying you need me to explain to you the document's self-explanatory charts and graphs, what you're reading with your own eyes?

"Everyone knows public school in United States sucks ass."

The same way everyone know penguins wear tuxedos?

"You live in some fantasy land."

And there's the inevitable attempted ad hominem marginalization gambit.

The problem with being some guy on teh interwebz making claims of "but muh friends said" is a mix of excessive potential for observer bias and being some guy on teh interwebz making claims of "but muh friends said."

Sooo... yeah... those alleged 40 (that's a suspiciously round number) people? Odds are they're not going meet the credibility threshold. 🤨

*relevant graphs start on p.18