Day 046 - 04 Nov 94 - Page 72
1 second column -- take, for example, the 0 to 7s, do you
2 see?
3 A. Yes.
4
5 Q. In the bottom table, "1991 Summary of visitation by age"?
6 A. That is that is correct.
7
8 Q. We see that the number of annual visits for that age
9 category, 0 to 7, was 420.9 (sic) million, was it not?
10 A. Yes. 420.9, excuse me?
11
12 Q. Sorry. 520.9.
13 A. 520.9.
14
15 Q. Then we jump a column, and we see that the US population
16 for that age group, in other words, number of 0 to 7s in
17 the population at large is 29.6 million?
18 A. Yes.
19
20 Q. If you divide 29.6 million into 520.9 million, you in
21 fact -- and I can tell you, because I have done the thing
22 on a calculator -- you get a figure of 17.6?
23 A. That is correct. I believe that was my definition.
24
25 Q. I think they have used the same method.
26 A. Yes.
27
28 Q. What we find here is, is it -- and this is what I am
29 asking -- the column "per capita visits" represents an
30 estimate of the number of visits made by every child in the
31 population in that age group per year to McDonald's?
32 A. An average.
33
34 Q. An average?
35 A. That is correct.
36
37 Q. That is an average?
38 A. Yes.
39
40 Q. Of course. So that there would be some who go not at all,
41 or very seldom, and some who go much more often?
42 A. That is correct.
43
44 Q. We can see, if we do what you call the math, that for the
45 age group 0 to 13, the average number of visits annually
46 per child in that age group is 16.7?
47 A. Yes. You would add up the population, which would be
48 the 29.6 or 21.4, and you would add up the visits, and you
49 would do division; and if you did the division, I rest on
50 your feeling or your judgment.
51
52 Q. If you do the calculation for the age group 0 to 17, again
53 adding up the visits and then dividing them by the total
54 amount of population in those age groups, you get a figure
55 of 18.2, average number of visits per year per child?
56 A. This would be the most accurate way to do that.
57
58 Q. Is that what you were thinking of when you gave the figure
59 of roughly 20?
60 A. Yes; roughly 20 was what I was thinking of, and these
