By what percentage does the average price increase from 1994 to 1995? Obtain a truncated version of the graph by sliding a piece of paper over the bottom of the graph so that the bars start In the truncated graph, by what percentage does the price appear to increase from 1994 to 1995? Why is the truncated graph misleading?
I couldn't paste the graph.
The bottom is labeled by the years
94,95,96,97,98
and the graph going us are the avg cost of a studio
starting at 0 going up to 600
For 94 the graph shows 400
95 and 96 are both 500
97 550
98 575
Thanks for any help
If no one can help, can someone explain a truncated version or how I should go about finding it? Thanks!
a trunkated graph eliminates the bottom part of the chart, showing only the top. This is never a good idea, unless you want to lie with statistics. In this graph, the non-trunkated graph starts at zero and goes upward to 600.
The trunked version starts at about 390 to 600. It makes the difference in the height look more prounounced.
Great explanation. Thank you, you just made the entire problem make sense to me.
And the increase from 94-95 would be 500-400=100?
To calculate the percentage increase from 1994 to 1995, we first need to determine the difference in average prices between those two years. In this case, the price in 1994 is given as 400, and the price in 1995 is given as 500.
To find the difference, we subtract the 1994 price from the 1995 price:
500 - 400 = 100
Next, we need to calculate the percentage increase. To do this, we divide the difference by the initial value (the price in 1994) and then multiply by 100:
(100 / 400) * 100 = 25%
So, the percentage increase from 1994 to 1995 is 25%.
Now, let's discuss the truncated graph. The truncated graph refers to a portion of the original graph that is covered by a sliding piece of paper so that only some bars are visible. In this case, the focus is on the bars representing the average price for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
The question asks by what percentage the price "appears" to increase in the truncated graph from 1994 to 1995. However, since you mentioned that the bars start at 0 and go up to 600, and the prices in question are within the range of 400 to 500, the percentage increase might not be accurately reflected in the visual representation of the truncated graph.
The misleading aspect of the truncated graph is that the reduced vertical range distorts the relative size of the bars, making it difficult to accurately assess the percentage increase between two specific years. To obtain an accurate representation, it would be better to view the complete graph with the entire vertical range visible.