Richard Zhao

Per. 4
AP Stats Part 2
One of the things that gave me an AHA moment was the concept that
data that is technically true can be misleading in what message it sends and
that sometimes the average, which is usually perceived to be trustworthy,
can sometimes be replaced by using a more accurate median. My book used
an example of comparing three bowling teams average scores to
demonstrate why an average score can be misleading. Team C had the
highest average, 103, while teams A and B had the same average of 87.
However, on closer inspection, it was apparent that team C was actually
generally worse than the other two teams, but had one player who scored
extremely high that made team C appear disproportionately stronger. In
cases where there is an extremely large or small value, itd be more
appropriate to use the median. This concept was then used to explain
savings in the real world. Average savings is misleading because that
number is heavily distorted by those who possess an immense amount of
wealth. A couple of millionaires would greatly increase the average, and so
its more appropriate to use the median. This helped me realize that when
someones talking about an average, I have to consider the source of the
data and determine if the average really is a good representation. If the
average includes people or things that are clearly outliers, then the
average doesnt send an accurate message. The book also introduced the
concept of standard deviation to further explain that data can be misleading.

Although teams A and B had the same average, the general skill of each
player was very different upon closer inspection. Team A had scores that
ranged from very low to very high, while team B had scores that were very
similar. As a result, Team Bs standard deviation was lower than team As and
showed that one teams variance was far lower. Thus, the average could
more accurately describe team B than team A, which again helped to
emphasize that I couldnt take data at face value and would have to be
skeptical of how useful given information really was.
Another thing that gave me an aha moment was when the book
started talking about a perceived relationship between two independent
variables and ways to determine how closely related they really are
mathematically. You can graph these variables together to get a much
clearer picture of the data and to see whether or not these variables are
related with each other. The type of data doesnt matter either- you can
graph numerical with numerical, numerical with categorical, or numerical
with categorical. However, despite this flexibility, this graphing is unable to
determine how strongly these variables are related. The book used an
example of ladies in their twenties and the amount of money spent on
makeup and clothes. When they made a chart, it was apparent that people
who spent more money on makeup spent more money of clothes too. When
they calculated that the correlation coefficient, the number was extremely
close to 1, indicating a clear relationship. However, it was said that there
were no formal statistical standards to confirm that any two variables have a

relationship. In addition, they also said that Id have to be careful in

considering of what type of data Im trying to analyze. If the data resembles
a parabola when graphed for example, then the correlation coefficient will
indicate little to no relation. This helped me to understand that Id have to
always be cautious when someone wants to claim a relationship between
two variables. Even if something appears to have little relation due to this
index, I have to check to make sure that its a linear relation to begin with.
Similarly, Id have to be aware if two variables appear to be related, but
actually arent. For instance, just because all people who drink water will die,
that doesnt necessarily mean that drinking water kills you. Id have to check
to see that if I change one of the variables the other variable will change
along with it. In other words, Id have to keep in mind that correlation does
not necessarily imply causation. When I change one variable and the other
changes with it in a predictable manner, then I have a significant correlation.