Put "Why Graph 1 looks so different from Graph 2 even with identical data

• The y-axis scale is truncated in Graph 1 (roughly 950-1000), so small numerical differences (e.g., 970 vs 985 vs 955) are visually exaggerated.
• Graph 2 uses a baseline at zero and a full 0-1000 range, so the same differences look modest.
• Same data, different axis ranges and baselines change visual impression.

1. Example of a misleading graph

• Source and link: "Fox News' misleading unemployment chart" (example archived and discussed here): https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/foxs-misleading-graph-unemployment-rate
• What it shows: A bar/line display of U.S. unemployment rates where the y-axis starts near 7.8% rather than 0%.
• Why it's misleading: By cutting off the lower part of the axis, tiny percentage changes look dramatic, implying a much larger swing than actually occurred. The visual difference suggests a crisis-scale jump even though the underlying numbers changed only slightly.
• How to fix it: Start the y-axis at zero (or clearly justify and flag any nonzero baseline), use consistent intervals, add data labels, and avoid unnecessary 3D or heavy shading that can distort perception.

1. Sample reply to a classmate (you can adapt this to a specific post) "Great find! I agree the graph is misleading because the y-axis is truncated, which inflates small differences. To improve it, I'd start the axis at zero, use equal tick marks, and add exact data labels. If space is an issue, a dot plot with a full scale would show the differences honestly without exaggeration." one short paragraph without changing any words