Question

listed below are the numbers of unprovoked shark attacks worldwide for the last several years: 70, 54, 68, 82, 79, 83, 76, 73, 98, 81. why is it that a dotplot of these data would not be very effective in helping us understand the data? a. even though the data are numeric, they are actually categorical data because each value is discrete. b. the data set is too small for a dotplot to reveal important characteristics of the data. c. there are several duplicate values in the data and most graphical methods cannot accurately show duplicate values. d. the spread of the data is very small, so it would be nearly impossible to see any differences when represented graphically.

Explanation:

To determine why a dotplot is ineffective, we analyze each option:

• Option A: The data (number of shark attacks) is numeric, not categorical, so A is wrong.
• Option B: The data set size (10 values) isn't too small for a dotplot; dotplots work with small sets, so B is wrong.
• Option C: The data has no duplicates (70, 54, 68, 82, 79, 83, 76, 73, 98, 81 are all unique), so C is wrong.
• Option D: The data values are close (e.g., 54 to 98, but most are in 54 - 98 with many in 70 - 83). The spread is small, so a dotplot (which shows individual data points) would have points clustered, making it hard to see differences. This matches why a dotplot is ineffective.

Answer:

D. The spread of the data is very small, so it would be nearly impossible to see any differences when represented graphically