Hi guys, I'm stuck on a question for my statistics class. What the hell is the "scope" of a graph? I've discovered what the scale of a graph is, but can't seem to find the definition of a scope. I've tried googling for the answer with no luck. Any one here that can help me out would really be appreciated. Thanks!

I'd assume it has something to do with how much the graph can tell you. Like, if a graph only showed you what is going on between -5 and 5, then everything between those are within the scope of the graph and determining what is going on at at say -28 is outside of the scope of the graph.

I'd assume it has something to do with how much the graph can tell you. Like, if a graph only showed you what is going on between -5 and 5, then everything between those are within the scope of the graph and determining what is going on at at say -28 is outside of the scope of the graph.

The question is: Is the scope and scale of the graph appropriate? Why or why not?

This assignment asked us to find our own scale and answer these set questions. I chose a multiple bar graph depicting the percentage of men and women developing cardiovascular disease.

i think it just means - is the range of values and the type of units shown on the graph acceptable to the display your data.

if you are measuring things in cm for instance and all of your data lies between 10 cm and 80 cm then there is no point having a graph that goes from 0 cm to 10000 cm. and second it'd be best to have your units scale as cm or mm, measuring in km or nano meters would be difficult to interpret.

Based on that, I'd say it is likely asking for something that seems to combine what I said with what shlver said.

Seems like that type of question is asking: Is the graph scaled to an appropriate size considering the info. So if the range of data points on the graph goes from 0 through 8, yet the graph shows everything from -50 to 50, it seems like the scope is inappropriately large. If the graph has data points ranging from 0 through 1000, but you only show 0 through 10, then the scope of the graph is too small.

Here is my attempt to be more specific to a bar graph:
Lets say that your sample showed 8500 men had the disease and 8000 women had it. If you show a graph that shows 0 through 10000, the bars are going to look roughly the same. If the two numbers (8500 and 8000) are statistically significantly different yet appear to be roughly the same on the graph, it is likely that the scope of the graph is not zoomed in enough, and thus is an inappropriate scope. If you show say 6000 through 10000, the gap between men and women appears to be larger, and more accurately shows the difference.
On the flip side to that, lets say the numbers are 8004 men and 8001 women (I chose these numbers because they are likely to be not significantly different in a problem). If you zoom in showing the range of 8000 to 8005, it will appear that the disease is way more common in men than women (because men's bar would be towards the top of the graph and the women's bar towards the bottom). This would inappropriate give the impression of a large difference when really the difference is minuscule.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what it is asking (and it is especially hard not seeing the graph itself), but I hope this helps.

Based on that, I'd say it is likely asking for something that seems to combine what I said with what shlver said.

Seems like that type of question is asking: Is the graph scaled to an appropriate size considering the info. So if the range of data points on the graph goes from 0 through 8, yet the graph shows everything from -50 to 50, it seems like the scope is inappropriately large. If the graph has data points ranging from 0 through 1000, but you only show 0 through 10, then the scope of the graph is too small.

Here is my attempt to be more specific to a bar graph:
Lets say that your sample showed 8500 men had the disease and 8000 women had it. If you show a graph that shows 0 through 10000, the bars are going to look roughly the same. If the two numbers (8500 and 8000) are statistically significantly different yet appear to be roughly the same on the graph, it is likely that the scope of the graph is not zoomed in enough, and thus is an inappropriate scope. If you show say 6000 through 10000, the gap between men and women appears to be larger, and more accurately shows the difference.
On the flip side to that, lets say the numbers are 8004 men and 8001 women (I chose these numbers because they are likely to be not significantly different in a problem). If you zoom in showing the range of 8000 to 8005, it will appear that the disease is way more common in men than women (because men's bar would be towards the top of the graph and the women's bar towards the bottom). This would inappropriate give the impression of a large difference when really the difference is minuscule.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what it is asking (and it is especially hard not seeing the graph itself), but I hope this helps.

Repped. Articulated and expanded way more than my crappy reply. Even gave an answer for the "why" part of the question.

Based on that, I'd say it is likely asking for something that seems to combine what I said with what shlver said.

Seems like that type of question is asking: Is the graph scaled to an appropriate size considering the info. So if the range of data points on the graph goes from 0 through 8, yet the graph shows everything from -50 to 50, it seems like the scope is inappropriately large. If the graph has data points ranging from 0 through 1000, but you only show 0 through 10, then the scope of the graph is too small.

Here is my attempt to be more specific to a bar graph:
Lets say that your sample showed 8500 men had the disease and 8000 women had it. If you show a graph that shows 0 through 10000, the bars are going to look roughly the same. If the two numbers (8500 and 8000) are statistically significantly different yet appear to be roughly the same on the graph, it is likely that the scope of the graph is not zoomed in enough, and thus is an inappropriate scope. If you show say 6000 through 10000, the gap between men and women appears to be larger, and more accurately shows the difference.
On the flip side to that, lets say the numbers are 8004 men and 8001 women (I chose these numbers because they are likely to be not significantly different in a problem). If you zoom in showing the range of 8000 to 8005, it will appear that the disease is way more common in men than women (because men's bar would be towards the top of the graph and the women's bar towards the bottom). This would inappropriate give the impression of a large difference when really the difference is minuscule.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what it is asking (and it is especially hard not seeing the graph itself), but I hope this helps.

Wow, thanks! That's an excellent way of putting it so I can understand. Repped...