I’m not sure how that’s nonsense
Because we have per capita stats that would have worked just fine for all of this and not ended up looking like nonsense. If one of my employees brought me this nonsense at work, I'd ask them if they are in the right profession (I do stats and research).
The person who made this is a moron. When they teach you stats, proper labeling on your charts is the basics. The absolute basics. Messing up the labels like was done and not having the labels defined properly clearly demonstrates how much of an absolute moron the author of this chart really is.
The author was trying to go for an under and over representation stat. But failed miserably (you can do a per capita stat and IN THE READING, state which group is over/under represented). Also, you're defending this too hard. You must be the retard who made this. Damn, you're retarded if you made this.
Lmao what?
You didn’t understand what the y-axis label meant.
That doesn’t make the person who made the chart retarded, it makes you retarded. Pretty much everyone here understood this graph except you, you should not be in charge of people whose job it is to present information if you think this simple chart is nonsense.
It literally shows per capita data using 100% as the baseline for expectation per race but you somehow think it’s something separate from per capita rates
Lmao what?
You didn’t understand what the y-axis label meant.
No, you didn't. They mislabeled Y-Axis because that was actually the parenthetical attribute on the x-axis. Thanks for playing, though. And, yup, you're confirmed retarded.
Holy fuck. Actually retarded.
Whoever made this chart added extra information below the x-axis to make it easier for illiterate people to understand. And you still don’t understand it.
The inclusion of additional parenthetical data below the x-axis does not change what is being represented on the y-axis.
Holy Jesus, people actually submit things to you for review?
(post is archived)