...it was asking a specific question, because that’s how research work.

"One of the big questions GiveDirectly is trying to answer is how to direct cash to low-income households."

What I'm saying is that if they are excluding key demographics from those low-income households, then their study is bias. Nothing more, nothing less.

The conclusion they came up with regarding the purchase of alcohol might not even make sense, for example, if they gave money to a high-religious group of people who don't consume alcohol. Is that making my point any clearer?

I was only suggestion caution based on how I know the other study was rigged.

Would you prefer it if they specifically selected drug addict and long term unemployed people?

Depends on the study's objective.

Put it this way: If a study is trying to find out whether UBI would benefit a community, state, or country, it NEEDS to include an accurate representation of the demographics of those groups of people.

When you say it was rigged, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the question that was tested in the experiment.

I'm saying the other study was rigged. I can't even see the methodology of this study because the link is broken. If I could see how they distributed this money, and whether any exclusions were presented, I could form a more accurate opinion.