> I'd read this as "In excess of their expected appearance rate"

That's a successful rhetorical technique.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. What if I told you that 40% of sick days were taken on Monday and Friday?

Your brain instantly fills in "because they want a three day weekend", not "well that was expected".

People who write these articles are experts at letting us fill in the blanks.

These studies never seem to have the troubles that other scientific studies have, repeat-ability, outliers or biases at picking companies. If you pick the best of a wider selection, the result is to be better of course, but even then, some companies should screw up just because - the noise of a complex world, where good employees might not overcome bad management or bad circumstances.

No, I'd parse that as being 2/5. The difference is, you didn't say "40% more sick days are taken on Monday and Friday", which would imply (M+F) = 1.4(T+W+T) -> 58% of sick days taken on Monday and Friday, and 42% of sick days taken on the remaining days.

You seem to be overlooking the word "more" in "35% more likely". It's not "35% chance".

You brain is very good at filling in absent words to change the logical content of a statement.

Is your argument that this interpretation is numerically wrong or that you don't like the phrasing? It matches my read numerically.

Still post hoc fallacy.

Edit: I'd->is