hello

I have a hard time understanding the questions would you please help answer the question and explain why.

thanks in advance.

US Incomes (1977) U. S. in 1977. The following table gives a distribution of incomes taken from individual income tax returns in the Adjusted Gross Income ($) | Number (thousands) | Percent 0-999 4,542 5.2 1000-1999 5,101 5.9 2000-2999 4,795 5.5 3000-3999 4,443 5.1 4000-4999 4,360 5.0 5000-5999 4,238 4.9 6000-6999 4,298 5.0 7000-7999 3,792 4.4 8000-8999 3,533 4.1 9000-9999 3,482 4.0 10000-10999 3.208 3.7 11000-11999 2,877 3.3 12000-12999 2,884 3.3 13000-13999 2,793 3.2 14000-14999 2,511 2.9 15000-19999 11,388 13.2 20000-24999 7, 766 9.0 25000-29999 4,330 5.0 30000-49999 4,754 5.5 50000 and up 1,398 1.6 1. Below right is a histogram for the data above. Is it misleading in any way? If so, (a) what misimpression does it give? (b) how could you fix the histogram? 2. Try drawing a histogram that shows graphically this distribution. What difference does it make whether you choose to do this using the percentages or the absolute numbers? 3. How should the axes of your histogram be labeled? What are the units? 4. How does a histogram represent the data? For example, indicate on your histograms those whose income is between $5,000 and $10,000. 5. Should the sum of the heights of the rectangles of a histogram work out to 100%? Why or why not? Do they in this case? 6. Suppose another table has the same year's in- comes broken down more finely, say in $500 in- 2 crements. How would this change the histogram? What would you see if one histogram were superim- posed on the other? 26