Yesterday I read the least informative sentence I've ever seen in the pages of The New York Times, in an article on the purported effects of a decline in reading by people:
The data also showed that students who read for fun nearly every day performed better on reading tests than those who reported reading never or hardly at all.I can't blame this all on the writer, since the story merely paraphrases a report that apparently spends 99 pages stating the obvious. But there's still no excuse for failing to provide a perspective on the report's findings. I mean, why waste the paper?