This is a huge national chain, so i can't imagine they'd have two glaring errors...

I think this goes to show that being big and national is no guarantee of anything (except, perhaps that they will do all in their power to maximise profits and market share.)

Also, the statistics are without great value, as they stand. One feels that in order to reach the magic figure of 80% they have taken the top and bottom ages around that grouping. There is no reason to take an age group between 14 and 24, is there? a grouping of 14 - 18 years might have more relevance (but not necessarily!!) and I could appreciate a rationale that looks at the whole population from birth to death in five-year groups, but what virtue is there in such a wide age range? The differences in knowledge and experience in that eleven years is unfathomable, I would have thought.

But then, I am a mere historian - can some of our sociological colleagues comment?