Presentation on theme: "The graph below illustrates which deceptive technique?"— Presentation transcript:
1 The graph below illustrates which deceptive technique? A. Poor Y axis scale B. Area trick C. Unclear grid lines D. Dramatic title.
2 Briefly list strengths and weaknesses of the following Briefly list strengths and weaknesses of the following. Cite specific principles of good graphs, as well as offering your own general interpretation. Data appear to be from a reliable source, axes are clearly labeled, and title is not dramatic. But the graph does not start at zero, which exaggerates the increase in bankruptcies, and the distracting pictures obscure the data and create a feeling of emotional distress
3 Proportions are good, and title is clear, but units are not defined (dollars? Units sold?). No source. A bit cluttered, but only alternative would be a table. Could try a mountain chart.
4 Eye-catching and colorful, but title is vague, units are not given, too many pie slices, 3D makes it hard to assess size of slices, no source, no year.
5 Amusing and colorful, but too much information shown, pictures are distracting, no time period or dates given, no source, whose stocks are they? Non-zero origin exaggerates changes.
6 Colorful and amusing, but no clue what is being shown. Whose retirement? What kind of investment is this? Deceptive area trick (dollar signs grow in width as well as height), no dates given, no source, useless title.
7 Amusing and colorful, but dramatic, leading title, no dates, distracting pictures, area trick (bars grow wider as well as taller), no source, what institution(s) does the graph refer to?
8 Funny pictures, attention-getting, but a simple line chart would do Funny pictures, attention-getting, but a simple line chart would do. Leading, dramatic title belies the data (no obvious "progress"). Whose scores? When? No source given.
9 Attractive, but area trick is deceptive (bars get wider as well as taller), distracting pictures, how many physicians (otherwise total tells us little - maybe they just hired more docs). No source.
10 Colorful, but cute subtitle adds nothing, 3D bars are hard to read, too many pie slices, too much info displayed, distracting pictures, no source, no time period stated, units of measurement not given (e.g., surgeries performed?)
11 Attractive, attention-getting, but area trick is used (bars get wider as well as taller), no source, definition is unclear (whose fire losses --homes? businesses? all?)
12 Sober, clear, attractive graph with clear title, but no source, no definition of calls (whose?), no time period stated, and worst of all the graph has a non-zero origin which exaggerates changes.
13 Unhelpful title, units not given, no source, no definition of what is shown, too cluttered. Probably a table would work better
14 As pie charts go, not too bad (not too many slices, labeled clearly, 2D is easy to read, colors provide good contrast). Basis for the data is not shown (what year) but source is given