You have to choose Party, whose members most apt to vote according to their previously stated preference regarding the issue of working-time reduction. The graph shows the effect of voters’ previously stated preference regarding the issue of working-time reduction It does not matter what were their preferences For or Against. I have a doubt in Q1, when we say previously stated pref. The party which would be most apt to vote against, would be which has a higher probability in against and a lesser one in for.įrom the graph,we can infer that the in case of against the Zeta has the highest probability which goes from 0.70 to 0.45, => Zeta's party members are most apt to vote against if their previous vote was also against. Members of the_party are most apt to vote against the issue of working-time reduction if their previously stated preference regarding the issue of working-time reduction was also against. Thus, we can infer from the graph, that the probability is maximum for Delta party (~ 0.8).Ģ. => the probability for such team would be highest. What's asked is which teams previously stated reference/actual preference is the highest, => which party voted for in the previously stated reference and in the actual preference. Members of the_party are most apt to vote according to their previously stated preference regarding the issue of working-time reduction. ![]() Here, we're looking for a specific point that has a high percent for the AGAINST option. Q2 The part that is MOST apt to vote AGAINST the policy IF the presence is to vote AGAINST. THAT line is most apt to vote according to its preference. Overall, the Delta line is above the other lines (except for one spot). We'd be looking for an overall line that has a high percentage. Q1 The party that is MOST apt to vote according to the preference (e.g. The drop-down questions that follow ask you to look for "trending" data in the chart. In IR questions that includes tables, charts or graphs, it's important to understand what the data "means." Based on the chart and the description next to it, here's what you should notice:ġ) There are 5 political parties (including "no preference") and each has a line on the graph.Ģ) The lines represent the probability that a party members vote the SAME as their preference.ģ) Preferences vary from "against" to "for" with 3 options "in the middle"Ĥ) Individual data points will tell you the probability that one's "vote" matches one's "preference." For example, in the Delta party, if you look at the point that is farthest to the right, it tells you that about 80% of the Delta members whose preference is "for" the issue actually vote "for" the issue (and by deduction, about 20% vote in a way that differs from their preference). Thus, members of the Zeta party are the most apt to vote against working-time reduction if they previously stated they were against it. Above the word "against," on the far left of the graph, the data point representing the Zeta party is higher than any of the points representing any of the other parties. In the graph, the heights of the data points above the word "against" indicate how likely the members of the various parties who previously stated they were against working-time reduction are to vote against it. Therefore, members of the Delta party were most apt to vote according to their previously stated preference. But because less than 10 percent of the Delta and Zeta parties' voters had a previously stated preference against the issue, this data has little effect on voters' overall likelihood to vote according to their previously stated preference. The data points representing the Delta party are higher than the data points representing all the other parties except at the far left of the graph, where only the data point representing the Zeta party is higher. ![]() Thus, how apt the members of a party are to vote according to their previously stated preference is shown in the graph by how high the data points are that represent that party. ![]() In the graph, the vertical axis shows probabilities of voting in accordance with previously stated preferences, with greater probabilities represented higher on the axis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |