This kind of graphic work has little real value

no necessity of inflicting such cruelty on a reader. Though the circles in Fig. 37, drawn on a diameter basis, exaggerate the ratios, the circles in Fig. 38, plotted on an area basis, make the reader underestimate the ratio. Comparison between circles of different size should be absolutely avoided. It is inexcusable when we have available simple methods of charting so good and so convenient from every point of view as the horizontal bar.

In Fig. 37 and in Fig. 38, it would have been better if the year had been given under each circle, with the figures for quantity placed above the circles, so as to follow the standard arrangement of havinc

COMPARISONS INVOLVING TIME

H.59 1,000 One Mile

32,837,000 One MJle

dates placed always at the base of the chart.

Another difficulty in the comparison of areas is shown in Fig. 39. No figures have been given and the helpless reader must compare by means of the pictures alone. By measurement, it will be seen that the minister in 1700 has over three times the height of the minister in 1900. Since the man in each case is shown in his natural proportions, the picture of the minister in 1700 has over nine times the area of the picture for 1900. Whether the ratio should be roughly three or roughly nine, we cannot tell.

Another example of the same kind of difficulty appears in Fig. 40, but here the figures are given and we can check up the author to see whether he has drawn the 1911 man on the basis of height or on the basis of area. The 1911 man, on account of his far greater area, looks to be rather more than two and a quarter times as important as the man of 1899.