Final answer:
Kristina's claim of an 80 percent approval rating for a politician is an example of biased language, as it does not disclose that the rating is only among those who voted for him, thereby potentially misleading readers.
Step-by-step explanation:
Kristina's statement about the politician's approval rating can best be described as an example of biased language. This is because she selectively presents information that favors the politician by not disclosing that the approval rating is solely among those who voted for him. This lack of full disclosure may lead readers to believe the approval rating is representative of the general public's opinion, which is not the case.
Sources of information, like news reports or political commentary, should aim to be objective and offer balanced viewpoints. A claim of an '80 percent approval rating' without the necessary context is a form of bias that can mislead the audience. Such information should be accompanied by the appropriate context to allow readers to accurately assess the validity and relevance of the approval rating to the wider population.
Furthermore, presenting skewed data as representative of a larger group without proper qualification can fall under the category of a hasty generalization, as it incorrectly generalizes the sentiment of a specific group to the entire population.