Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Let me rephrase what you phrased: Imagine you're investigating a drug for hair loss, like 20000 other researchers hellbent on achieving their goals. You gather a group of 31 bald white men. 15 of them take a placebo and 16 take the experimental drug for 24 weeks, but because your random allocation put more extra bald people in your non-control group you fixed it by balancing the two groups. Your counterpart that…
You had to introduce a lot of assumptions to invalidate the n=31. So let me lay it out in more detail. I recruited 31 white men who self-report having no hair on at least 500cm^2 of their head. They all had hair as adolescents, and lost it gradually throughout their 20s or early 30s. They're all at least 37 now. I then sort them into the two groups by assigning sequential IDs in random order. Those with an odd ID are…
Clearly this is a sham and you needed at least 31^47 participants in this study you charlatan!