No, the graph suggests that the increase in adoptions from 2000 to 2005 was less significant than it actually is. No, the graph suggests that the increase in adoptions from 2000 to 2005 was more significant than it actually is. Yes, the graph fairly and accurately depicts the data in an objective manner.

No, the graph suggests that the increase in adoptions from 2000 to 2005 was more significant than it actually is

Step-by-step explanation:

Ok, in the graph we can see that the minimal value for the y-axis is y = 4000.

This means that the graph is like a "zoom" tath points to the tips of the boxes.

This makes the relative difference between the columns seems to be bigger than it actually is, so the correct answer would be:

"No, the graph suggests that the increase in adoptions from 2000 to 2005 was more significant than it actually is"

And remember that this happens for the people that only see the graph for a second and draw the conclusions (most of the people). While in the graph you can read all the information that you need to calculate exactly the relative change.

a28=58

step-by-step explanation:

a1=a1+(n-1)d

a28= 4+ (28-1)2

a28=4+(27)(2)

a28=4+54

a28=58

true

step-by-step explanation:

according to the national european world center, the engineering of the ford company on elon musk's flame throwers proved the globalization of the natural wallabies and therefore, results in the growth product domestication in almonds.