Two versions of one chart, the supplied original and a corrected rebuild, with a written critique naming each distortion and the conclusion it would have produced. Searches like "busi 3014 week 7 assignment example", "busi3014 week 7 sample" and "busi 3014 week 7 example" land here.
What a finished BUSI 3014 Week 7 chart critique looks like
Two to three pages with both charts shown full width and labeled Original and Rebuilt. The supplied chart is a bar chart of callbacks per technician, repeat visits because a treatment did not hold, with the vertical axis starting at 40 so that one technician's bar towers over the rest. The critique names three problems: the truncated baseline, raw counts where rates belong since that technician ran the most jobs, and a missing time period. The rebuilt chart starts at zero, shows callbacks as a share of each technician's jobs, and states the quarter in its title. Prose between the two explains that the apparent problem technician has an illustrative callback rate close to the team's. The critique draws on Alberto Cairo's argument that charts can mislead through design choices as well as bad data.
How a BUSI 3014 Week 7 example is structured
The critique proceeds from what the chart claims to how it makes that claim. Its opening states the message a quick reader would take away, since the harm of a misleading chart lies in that takeaway rather than in the technical flaw. Each distortion is then isolated and named, and the paragraph for each one says which part of the false message it produces. The truncated axis exaggerates differences; the raw counts ignore workload; the missing period hides whether this is one bad month. The rebuild follows, with every design choice justified by the flaw it corrects. The corrected message, and the decision each version would have pushed the owner toward, fill the last paragraph, which ties the week back to the course's concern with decisions.
The false message stated first
The critique opens with what an owner glancing at the original would conclude: one technician is failing badly. Stating that takeaway gives every later paragraph something to dismantle, and it keeps the analysis focused on consequence rather than on design preferences.
Each distortion named separately
Truncated axis, raw counts instead of rates, no time period. Each gets its own short paragraph explaining how it contributes to the false message, because bundling them into a single complaint about a bad chart hides which flaw did the most damage.
Counts turned into rates
The technician with the tallest bar also ran the most jobs. Dividing callbacks by jobs completed puts every technician on the same footing, and it is usually the single change that reverses the chart's apparent verdict.
Rebuild choices tied to flaws
A zero baseline answers the truncated axis; a stated quarter in the title answers the missing period. Every change in the rebuilt figure maps to a named problem, and nothing is added for looks alone.
Two conclusions, side by side
The closing paragraph puts the original's conclusion beside the rebuilt chart's, then names the decision each would have prompted. Retraining one technician and leaving the team alone are very different actions, and choosing between them is the whole lesson.
Where marks go in BUSI 3014 Week 7
Rubrics in this week reward diagnosis before design. A rebuilt chart that looks cleaner earns little if the critique never explains what was wrong with the original and which conclusion it planted. Credit concentrates in the naming of each distortion and the link from that distortion to a false message; noticing the truncated axis while missing the raw-count problem usually caps a paper in the middle band. The rebuild is scored on whether each change answers a named flaw, so decorative improvements count for nothing. A separate element covers the corrected conclusion, stated plainly in words. Cairo, or the assigned reading, must be applied to this chart rather than summarized, and chart titles, axis labels and source notes are compared across both figures.
Get a BUSI 3014 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 7 chart with its prompt and rubric; a critique and rebuilt figure arrive inside 24 to 48 hours, the opening one at no cost. Spreadsheet in your classroom's required program? Say which, and the rebuilt chart is produced there with the construction described. If no chart was supplied, the sample chooses a common distortion to work on.
BUSI 3014 Week 7 questions, answered
What if the supplied chart has only one problem?
Then treat that one thoroughly and check for quieter issues such as missing units, unclear time periods or a legend that forces the reader to match colors. Most supplied charts in this week carry two or three problems by design. If you genuinely find one, explain its effect on the message in detail rather than inventing flaws to fill space.
Is a zero baseline always required?
For bar charts, almost always, because bar length is read as quantity. Line charts can use a narrower range when the point is change over time, provided the axis is clearly labeled. The critique earns credit for knowing which applies to the chart in hand rather than for repeating a blanket rule.
Do I need Alberto Cairo specifically?
Only if your course assigns him. Any reading that addresses how charts mislead will serve, and the assigned one is usually safest. What matters is applying it: naming a principle from the source and showing where this particular chart breaks it. A citation that sits in the introduction and never touches the chart earns little.