Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Dcollins - I appreciate the quality of brevity, however I think you take it too far. A line which said "heres an article which explains my views further" would have worked. As it was, you made a statement of fact, and followed up with a reference to a site that is not immediately identifiable as your own. It looks very much like you are using someones arguments to prove you are right, and it looks worse when someone works out that the website is your own.
The table requires a bit more than a single sentence of explanation. Going over it a bit more, I think I might understand (ie, the second half of the table is taking each value from the first half of the table, pro-rating that value over the various percentages, assuming that a size category increase always requires a +100% increase in size) but from the explanation given, it's not particularly clear - maybe include the table all the way to a +100% increase?
Regardless, I don't particularly agree with your conclusions - that a linear approximation to a decidedly non-linear function is good enough.
The table requires a bit more than a single sentence of explanation. Going over it a bit more, I think I might understand (ie, the second half of the table is taking each value from the first half of the table, pro-rating that value over the various percentages, assuming that a size category increase always requires a +100% increase in size) but from the explanation given, it's not particularly clear - maybe include the table all the way to a +100% increase?
Regardless, I don't particularly agree with your conclusions - that a linear approximation to a decidedly non-linear function is good enough.