The following excerpt is from an article “State reports find fraud rate of 42% in auto body repairs,” published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper in September of 2003. The Bureau of Automotive Repair...

The following excerpt is from an article “State reports find fraud rate of 42% in auto body repairs,” published in theSacramento Beenewspaper in September of 2003.

The Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), a branch of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, investigates complaints about collision-repair shops in California. “For the past two years,... consumers have been steered to BAR to determine if their cars had been properly fixed by collision-repair shops across the state. Of the 1,315 vehicles inspected in the two-year BAR study that ended in June, 42 percent were overbilled for labor not performed or parts not supplied, Consumer Affairs Director Kathleen Hamilton said at a news conference last week.... The average loss was $812.”

Is the following critique of the BAR study valid or invalid?

The article continues, “Officials in the auto-body repair industry blasted the report. ‘This is not a true random inspection but a complaint-driven inspection,’ said David McClune, chief of the California Autobody Association. The cars belong to disgruntled drivers, he claimed. ‘The results of this study can’t be projected upon the industry as whole,’ said McClune.”