The problem with this isn't that it's mathematically bad, it's that it's appropriating mathematical ideas (wrongly) to suggest some certainty and science behind it. There's an entire cottage industry of this in newspapers (see Ben Goldacre passim) 1/4

If the aim was illustration, this does it better. It says that two factors contribute, but is ambiguous how. That's fine, of course. More than this should contribute to that level, and it can be dynamic. But the basic idea is this. 2/4

More concretely, something like this gets the idea across. There are no numbers on it, but that's an issue of detail and policy -- and we don't know what that is. We use graphs like this all the time when weighing up risks. 3/4

This is concerning because no-one scientifically literate would jump to the first one. That's several layers of dumbing down while trying to look smart. 4/4