MalachiKeti
Hi, why is the third incorrect
carcass Statement I: As we move across from left to right, student enrollment increases, and the green dots, tuition income, clearly go up. As one goes up, the other goes up. We can find individual dot exceptions, but this is the overall pattern of all the green dots together. That's a positive correlation. Therefore, tuition income is positively correlated with student enrollment. The graph supports I.
Statement II: As we move across from right to left, student enrollment increases, and the red dots go down--as one increases, the other decreases. We can find individual dot exceptions, but this is the overall pattern of all the red dots together. That's a negative correlation. Therefore, investment income is negatively correlated with student enrollment. The graph supports II.
Statement III: At the dot 20 on the horizontal scale, which represents 20,000 students, imagine a vertical line--we are considering all colleges to the right of that line. For investment income, we are looking at red dots. Six of the seven red dots are below the $500 million line, but one dot, the college with approximately 22,000 students, has an investment income of $570 million. Therefore, we can't say all these schools have investment income of less than $500 million.
The graph does not support III. The graph supports I & II only. Answer = (B)