Which is a terrible excuse for putting a fundamental flaw into the analysis. It's building a big assumption into the model that's known not to hold true in reality. Especially as the mis-represented cohort will, linguistically, be one of the most interesting - likely above average intelligence and a very different exposure to language. I suspect personally it's an oversight.
EDIT: Or, as is dawning on me, I might have missed a bit of sarcasm?
