Since you weren’t specific, here’s the source paragraphs for both claims:
According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota technically has 11,842 lakes. Those lakes are defined as bodies of water 10 acres or more.
According to the Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin has 15,074 “documented” lakes. Those are defined as bodies of water 2.2 acres or more. Of those lakes, about 6,000 are named.
15k is larger than 12k.
Last claim:
Finally, Minnesota still comes out ahead by counting surface area covered by lakes. But by adding what both states claim for Lake Superior and Michigan, Wisconsin has twice as much lake surface area.
Emphasis mine.
Did you not link the article you thought? Cause it clearly mentions both states. Michigan is definitely mentioned more than just Lake Michigan.
What? Where does it say that?
Also, The article mentions Lake Michigan, not the state
Since you weren’t specific, here’s the source paragraphs for both claims:
15k is larger than 12k.
Last claim:
Emphasis mine.
Did you not link the article you thought? Cause it clearly mentions both states. Michigan is definitely mentioned more than just Lake Michigan.
Your quoted segments clearly reference the different criteria (10 acres versus 2.2).
And the word “Michigan” appears exactly once in the article: in the second bit you quoted where it clearly refers to the lake.
I feel like you simply never read my initial comment at this point if that’s your response.
And I realized I literally just meant to say Minnesota, not Michigan, so you’re correct there. But it’s a moot point.