Misleading Statistics Statistics can be misleading. They are often used to prove a point, and can easily be twisted in favor of that point! The graphs that follow are taken from television or print sources.

Is this graph accurately representing the data or is it misleading? First of all, we only have data here from 2007-2008, which makes “than ever before” not true. Also, check out the scale. 5 books = 75% but 16 books = 82%. If we used the 5:75% scale, then 82% would be less than 6 books. This graph makes the increase look larger than it really is.

What about this one? This graph is a fair representation – it gives specific year parameters here and the scale is such that the data is clear.

Is this graph accurately representing the data or is it misleading? Look at the bar graph. It looks as if the Times is selling twice as many papers as the Daily Telegraph, but in fact, there is only a difference of about 10%.

From FOX news: what do you think? Note the end of the graph – students should recognize that the 8.6% level for November is actually graphed above the 9% line. This should be the lowest point on the graph.

Here the graph is done correctly...

Terry Schiavo was removed from life support after a years-long court battle. CNN used a graph similar to the one below to show who agreed with the decision to remove the feeding tube. A first look at this graph makes it look like three times as many democrats supported the decision. But on closer inspection, note the scale on the vertical axis. Only slightly more democrats supported than republicans (62% vs. 54%).

This one should be fairly obvious to students – the pie graph adds up to 193%. Also, the 63% wedge seems a bit larger than the 70% wedge.

Another fairly obvious blunder by CNN... This adds to 110%.