dates placed always at the base of the chart.
Another difficulty in the comparison of areas is shown in Fig. 39. No figures have been given and the helpless reader must compare by means of the pictures alone. By measurement, it will be seen that the minister in 1700 has over three times the height of the minister in 1900. Since the man in each case is shown in his natural proportions, the picture of the minister in 1700 has over nine times the area of the picture for 1900. Whether the ratio should be roughly three or roughly nine, we cannot tell.
 | An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|Graphic methods for presenting facts (1914).djvu/59}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. |  |
World's Work
Fig. 40. Passengers Carried on the Railroads of the United States in 1899 and in 1911 Compared
This illustration has all the bad features mentioned
for Fig. 39. Here the numerical data are given
and we can prove for ourselves that the two
pictured men are compared on the basis of
height. Because of the disproportionate area,
the right-hand picture gives the reader a false
and exaggerated impression of growth. See
Fig. 41
| An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|Graphic methods for presenting facts (1914).djvu/59}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. | |
Fig. 41. Number of Passengers Carried on the Railroads of the United States in 1899 and in 1911 Compared
Here is a chart drawn from the same data as Fig. 40. It was not a larger passenger, but more passengers,
that the railroads carried. The ratio expressing increase in business can be clearly and accurately seen
from this method of portraying the facts
Another example of the same kind of difficulty appears in Fig. 40, but here the figures are given and we can check up the author to see whether he has drawn the 1911 man on the basis of height or on the basis of area. The 1911 man, on account of his far greater area, looks to be rather more than two and a quarter times as important as the man of 1899. Though this type of graphic work is quite common, it should be avoided, for its visual inaccuracy is serious enough to cause distrust of the whole graphic method. In considering Fig. 40, the point
