Scored with Tufte's lie factor of 22.4, Few's case against dual axes and Cleveland and McGill's ranking, one investor slide is critiqued and redrawn for AC444 Unit 2. Searches like "ac 444 unit 2 assignment example", "ac444 unit 2 sample" and "ac444 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished AC444 Unit 2 chart critique looks like
The critique runs four pages. Page one describes the slide: shaded 3D columns for 2021 to 2025 on an axis starting at 90 million, a margin line on a right axis running only from 14.0 to 15.0 percent, and a logo watermark. Page two computes the lie factor: bars of 4.2 and 11.2 units give a 166.7 percent effect in the graphic against 7.43 percent in the data, a ratio of 22.4. Page three applies three named principles: data-ink, since depth and gradient carry no numbers; Few's argument that dual scales let the designer choose which lines appear to move together; and Cleveland and McGill's ranking, in which position on a common scale is read best. The last page redraws the slide from a zero baseline, organic and acquired revenue stacked, margin on its own panel.
How a AC444 Unit 2 example is structured
The critique moves from description to measurement to principle to repair, so each judgment rests on something established before it. Describing the slide neutrally first lets a reader agree on what is there before hearing what is wrong with it. The lie factor comes next because it turns an impression into a number, and the calculation is shown in full so the figure can be checked. Principles are applied one at a time, each cited by author and tied to a specific mark on the slide rather than listed as general advice. The avoided comparison is named at the end of the principles section, where the evidence supports it: acquisitions supplied 4.8 million in 2025, so organic growth was about 2.3 percent. The redraw closes the piece, showing that an honest version is possible with the same figures and makes the avoided comparison unavoidable.
The slide as published
Shaded columns on a baseline of 90 million and a margin line on its own narrow scale, described element by element before any judgment is made.
A lie factor of 22.4
Bar heights of 4.2 and 11.2 units are set against revenue of 94.2 and 101.2 million, with every step of the ratio printed.
Three principles, three marks
Tufte's data-ink, Few's warning about dual scales and Cleveland and McGill's perceptual ranking are each pinned to one feature of the slide.
Organic against acquired
Two purchased firms supplied 4.8 million of 2025 revenue, so growth without them was near 2.3 percent, the figure the slide never shows.
The same figures, redrawn
Stacked columns from zero separate organic from acquired revenue, and margin moves to a panel of its own with an honest scale.
Where marks go in AC444 Unit 2
Critiques that list flaws without measuring any of them are graded as opinion, so the lie factor calculation carries weight: a truncated axis described as exaggerating growth earns less than one shown to exaggerate it twenty-two times. Principles cited by name but never tied to a specific mark on the graphic read as a checklist copied from the readings. Dual axes are often criticized merely as cluttered, which misses Few's actual objection, that the designer controls the apparent relationship by choosing the scales. Graders expect the avoided comparison to be stated with a figure, not hinted at. Redraws that fix the axis but keep the 3D depth, or split the series without a shared time scale, repair one fault and leave another. Critiques of an unnamed graphic may lose marks where the prompt requires a published source.
Get a AC444 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the graphic assigned for Unit 2, or the source you picked if the choice was yours, together with the rubric and any readings your section names for its principles. The measured critique and redraw come back within 24-48h, and the first custom sample is free.
AC444 Unit 2 questions, answered
What is a lie factor and how is it computed?
Edward Tufte defined it as the size of an effect shown in a graphic divided by the size of the effect in the data. The sample measures bar heights above the truncated baseline, computes their percentage change, and divides by the percentage change in revenue. A value near one means the graphic is faithful; the slide's 22.4 means it exaggerates growth more than twentyfold.
Why is a second axis a problem if both are labeled?
Because the designer chooses both scales, and with them the apparent relationship between the two series. Stephen Few's argument is that labeling does not fix this: readers compare the lines' shapes and slopes, not the tick values. A margin moving four tenths of a point can be drawn as steep as revenue rising seven percent, which is exactly what the slide does.
Does the graphic have to be a real published one?
Many AC444 prompts ask for a graphic from a news outlet, annual report or investor presentation, and the critique should then cite its source. The sample uses a composite slide so that no real company is misrepresented, but the measurements and principles work identically on a real graphic. Send the one your section assigns and it is critiqued with its citation.