It sounds like the professor made it clear she was speaking in terms of population averages. So unless you can find empirical evidence that those statistics don't apply to that slice of the population, then there's absolutely no problem with what she said. She didn't say "15 of the men in this class are rapists."

Law students aren't learning to be statisticians, epidemiologists, or policy wonks. Emotionally moving people to act upon a collection of documented facts— be it in trial or a contract negotiation— requires persuasive speaking and strategy. She made the breadth and consequences of rape palpable to her students not only by giving it a face, but giving it their faces. Since this poster, years later, immediately recalled that story when prompted, I reckon it was thoroughly compelling.

The odds that a group of 100 law students would perfectly represent the overall population are astronomical.

You cannot extend population-level averages to a group of people without first proving that group is representative of the population.

Perhaps everyone in the room knew that. Perhaps it was even said. Were you there?

You essentially restated the criticism I responded to.

>> I would assume there to be more victims than offenders.

Why? Women who have been abused are often abused by more than one person.

>>just to make a point about unsolved rape.

She was making multiple points, several of which had nothing to do with rape. It was about criminality. Why we punish crimes the way we do. The strain on police/judicial resources. Diversionary programs. The prevalence of plea bargaining. and and and. A first year law lecture is a very nuanced thing.

What's her point other than that our system is ineffective and incredibly wasteful?