You are on page 1of 4

Box plot improvements Box plot 1 In box plot 1 they should have put a value to the horizontal line.

Also they should have chosen for smaller data steps for the horizontal line furthermore it would be better if they made multiple box plots for multiple years of short-term interest rates, because the box plot is particularly useful when comparing two or more data sets. The box plot is not an appropriate graph for the variable that is being shown. Interest rates can be better showed with a line graph or a histogram because; interest rates fluctuate a lot and with a box plot you can't see if there was an increase or a decrease in interest rates. Also you can't see what the current interest rate is or what the one of last year was. You can see all those data in a line diagram or a histogram. Box plot 2 In box plot 2 they should have given a title to the horizontal line. Also they should have added a number indication to the data on the horizontal line (in thousands for example). Box plot number 2 is the most accurate box plot of the three. The box plot is not an appropriate graph for the sales per year. You can see what the average yearly sales are but you can't see in what year they occurred or what year the least products were sold or in which year the most products were sold. Box plot 3 In box plot 3 they should have made a much smaller scale like from 5 till 9% in addition to that, the data steps should be smaller as well. Also they should have given the box plot a matching title not just box plot. The box plot is not an appropriate graph for the unemployment rates. As has also been said above, the dispersion and median are clearly visible, but you can not see in what year they occurred. Also you can't see if the unemployment rates have risen or have dropped over the last couple of years, which is very important for unemployment rates.

Cumulative frequency distribution of the expenses of 2009 Expenses(\$) 0-<9,999 10,000-<19,999 20,000-<29,999 30,000-<39,999 40,000-<49,999 50,000-<59,999 60,000-<69,999 70,000-<79,999 80,000-<89,999 90,000-<99,999 >100,000 Total Population size:11 Frequency 2 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 11 Cumulative frequency 2 6 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 Percent(%) 18.2 36.4 9.1 0 0 18.2 0 0 0 9.1 9.1 100 Cumulative Percent(%) 18.2 54.6 63.7 63.7 63.7 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9 91 100 100

Mean (): 56342.73 Median: 19000 Mode: No Lowest value: 2192 Highest value: 323966 Range: 321774 First quartile: 10750 Third quartile: 55298 Standard deviation (): 88862.35

Cumulative frequency distribution of the expenses of 2008 Expenses(\$) 0-<9,999 10,000-<19,999 20,000-<29,999 30,000-<39,999 40,000-<49,999 50,000-<59,999 60,000-<69,999 70,000-<79,999 80,000-<89,999 90,000-<99,999 >100,000 Total Population size: 11 Frequency 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 11 Cumulative frequency 1 3 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 9 11 11 Percent(%) 9,1 18,2 27,3 0 9,1 0 0 0 0 18,2 18,2 100 Cumulative Percent(%) 9,1 27,3 54,5 54,5 63,6 63,6 63,6 63,6 63,6 81,8 100 100

Mean (): 84942.82 Median: 28569 Mode: No Lowest value: 3000 Highest value: 404994 Range: 401994 First quartile: 13034 Third quartile: 99421 Standard deviation (): 114117.80

Cumulative frequency distribution of the expenses of 2007 Expenses(\$) 0-<9,999 10,000-<19,999 20,000-<29,999 30,000-<39,999 40,000-<49,999 50,000-<59,999 60,000-<69,999 70,000-<79,999 80,000-<89,999 90,000-<99,999 >100,000 Total Population size: 11 Frequency 6 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 Cumulative frequency 6 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Percent(%) 54,5 18,2 9,1 9,1 0 9,1 0 0 0 0 0 100 Cumulative Percent(%) 54,5 72,7 81,8 90,9 90,9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Mean (): 15905.91 Median: 8291 Mode: No Lowest value: 4481 Highest value: 53883 Range: 49402 First quartile: 5334 Third quartile: 22834 Standard deviation (): 15101.27 As can be seen from the frequency distributions above, the expenses of Envy motors rose over the years. The total expenses frequency stayed the same over the years but the frequency of the higher class expenses increased. Also you can see that the frequency in the highest classes is the largest in 2008. This means that the expenses in 2008 were the largest over the last three years. Furthermore you can see that the expenses are not fairly distributed over the classes. The most expenses are in the first couple of classes until around \$49.999 after that a big gap arises and then at the higher classes from \$90.000 and higher there are a couple of expenses again. So overall you can see that there is much more to the expenses, if you make a frequency distribution, then meets the eye.