Not legal advice? By virtue of what -- not advising any particular action? Not being about legal matters? It makes you wonder. (This is not sarcastic rejoinder.)

The instrument strongly measures the subject's willingness to make universal generalizations. Simply by strongly agreeing with all "sometimes" statements and strongly disagreeing with the "every" statement, one is fated to a maximum empathy of 54/70.

That's not the central limit theorem. The central limit theorem says (roughly) that for large sample sizes, the sample *mean* is itself distributed normally around the true mean. But the sample *distribution* will converge to the true distribution, which as you point out will not be normal in your example.

The caller should have resorted to fractional reasoning, which is easier and more intuitive than decimals for people without math training, and more easily avoids the cognitive interference from the unit conversion:

1. Can we agree that .2 means one fifth?
2. Can we agree that .002 means one five hundredth? Divide 1 by 500 on the calculator to check, please.
3. Can we agree that you've quoted me one five hundredth of a penny for each kB?
4. Can we agree that every 500 kB should therefore cost a penny?
5. Therefore, let's find out how many pennies I owe by dividing 35893 by 500.
6. ...Profit! (Obligatory)

I believe this approach would have been more successful.