[steven]

Don't get me wrong... I mean while I believe that my first impression of the thing could very well be possible, I'm not like stuck on that idea and looking for crap that only supports that idea.

I guess vague was a bad term to use the way I did. In fact it is very clear and very precise... but it just doesn't seem to back it up with any evidence (that is available). I'm not an expert in anything really... but I feel like if this were about something else and presented in court as "evidence" it wouldn't fly by their standards, if you get what I mean by that. It's a report in that is says what happened, but it doesn't really show any data. It's like a lab writeup that only has the hypothesis, results (as in written without data), and conclusion... but without any of the method or things that show how they got to the conclusion.

I suppose I'm just being a little abstract though. I read in the other thread that you're a political science major so I guess you come across things like this and read them frequently? Are they all like this? Do these kinds of official documents usually go unquestioned? (by people who actually have a say in things, that is)