2 ms·

First, the use of a log-scale seems to serve no purpose. The point is to illustrate that biomass is vastly worse than the alternatives; a comparison between tho

First, the use of a log-scale seems to serve no purpose. The point is to illustrate that biomass is vastly worse than the alternatives; a comparison between those alternatives is irrelevant. So the log scale obscures the point rather than elucidating it. But secondly: some log scale graphs have unevenly-spaced lines along the Y axis to make the use of a log scale more obvious. This is an example of what I mean: https://www.geol.lsu.edu/jlorenzo/geophysics/graphing/semilog1.gif https://www.geol.lsu.edu/jlorenzo/geophysics/graphing/semilo... On this graph, though, the lines along the Y-axis are evenly-spaced, increasing the confusion. Thirdly: the use of a log scale should be mentioned in the graph's caption, not buried in the text.

yuliyp 4y ago
Do they not teach log scale graphs in math classes any more? The scale visually reading as 10000, 1000, 100, 10, 1 immediately clues readers in to its log-scale nature. I found the graph incredibly clear to read, and it told me what I needed to know about many of the alternative types of electricity generation: which ones are comparable in efficiency, which have larger variances, where those variances overlap and do not overlap, as well as where the differences are large or not. I could see this as a critique of a log-scale graph appearing in a newspaper article or something where the reader is likely to be skimming, but in an persuasive essay readers would probably be more engaged and able to spend time synthesizing the arguments vs just storing information.