Hi shreyans0311,I see exactly where this is coming from. You're picturing each bubble as a fixed prototype, so it feels like the bubble should just "stay put" horizontally. But a bubble's
horizontal position is set by whatever value the x-axis is measuring, and that value changes when you switch the axis.
Right now the x-axis measures R. Look at the leftmost bubble: it sits at
R = 15, near the left edge. If you redraw the chart so the x-axis measures
V instead, that same prototype's x-value becomes V = 100 - 15 = 85 - so the bubble jumps to the far
right side of the chart. It's the same prototype, but its horizontal position has moved all the way across.
Run it across all five and you'll see them flip:
- R =
15 - V =
85- R =
30 - V =
70- R =
50 - V =
50 (the only one that stays put)
- R =
65 - V =
35- R =
85 - V =
15So the horizontal positions
do change (
four of the
five move). That's why "only the horizontal positions" and "horizontal and vertical positions" are both wrong.
What actually stays unchanged:Vertical position (P): how many cells met the standard doesn't depend on whether you
label the composition as R or V. Same number, same height.
Bubble size (E): average energy capacity is its own measurement - switching the x-axis label doesn't touch it.
You're right that there's no reason to resize the bubbles - and that instinct is correct! The size stays. The piece to fix is that
relabeling the x-axis from R to V forces each bubble to a new horizontal spot (except the R =
50 one). That's why the answer is
the vertical positions and sizes remain unchanged.
Answer: the vertical positions and sizes of the bubblesshreyans0311
Bunuel for Drop down 1
why does horizontal positions of the bubble is wrong? Right now the graph shows bubbles at (100-virgin%). there would be no need to change the size of bubbles if we move them horizontally. Is this approach flawed?