| Course | AC570 Data Analytics for Accountants |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Visualization critique |
| Length | About 590 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC570 Unit 7
Thirty-One Slices of a Tilted Pie: A Unit 7 Visualization Critique and Redesign of a Credits Page
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC570: Data Analytics for Accountants
Unit 7 Visualization Critique
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Stowfield Storage and every figure are composite; the books and textbook cited are real; the charts are described in text.
The Comparison the Page Exists For
The page is read by district managers deciding which facilities to visit. The comparison they need is which facilities credit more than they should, given their size and activity. Every design choice should serve that comparison (Few, 2012).
The Original Chart
Titled "Credits by Facility, FY2025," it is a three-dimensional pie with 31 colored slices, tilted back and with several slices pulled out, and a legend listing facilities by number. Slices show each facility's share of total credit dollars, which range from 2.06 to 4.85 percent.
Five Points of Critique
1. The measure is wrong for the question. Share of total credit dollars rewards size: a large facility credits more dollars because it has more tenants. The question is about credits relative to activity, so the measure should be credits as a share of billed rent, or the residual from the Unit 6 model.
2. Angles cannot be compared. People judge lengths along a common baseline far more accurately than angles or areas. With 31 slices between 2 and 5 percent, Facility 9 at 4.85 percent and Facility 22 at 4.77 percent look barely larger than Facility 31 at 4.28 percent (Tufte, 2001).
3. The tilt distorts. A pie seen at a tilt exaggerates the slices nearest the viewer and shrinks those at the back. Facility 31 sits in front.
4. The legend forces lookups. With 31 colors, the reader must match each slice to the legend, and several colors are nearly indistinguishable.
5. No reference point. Nothing tells the reader what a normal level is, so even an accurate reading would not say whether a facility is high.
A chart is judged by whether its reader can make the comparison the page is for, and this one fails before any design detail matters, because it shows each facility's share of dollars when the question is which facilities credit more than their activity explains.
The Redesign
A horizontal dot plot lists all 31 facilities, sorted from highest to lowest credits as a percentage of billed rent. A vertical line marks the company median, 6.5 percent, and a shaded band marks the range expected for a facility's move-in and delinquency activity, from the regression. Each facility's dot is gray if within its band and dark if above it. Facility labels sit at the left, so no legend is needed. The title states the finding: "Two facilities credit well above what their activity explains."
On the redesigned page, Facility 9 sits at the top at 19.51 percent of billed rent, but inside a wide band, because it opened in 2024 and is filling with promotional move-ins. Facility 22 sits at 11.8 percent, well above its narrow band. Every other facility sits within or near its band.
What the Redesign Still Cannot Show
The plot shows where credits are high relative to activity. It cannot show why, whether the cause is a lenient manager, a local competitor or misconduct, and it treats the regression's band as a fair expectation when the model explains only about a third of the variation. A note under the chart says so, and points readers to the exception tests for Facility 22 (Richardson et al., 2023).
References
Few, S. (2012). Show me the numbers: Designing tables and graphs to enlighten (2nd ed.). Analytics Press.
Richardson, V. J., Teeter, R. A., & Terrell, K. L. (2023). Data analytics for accounting (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.
The Purdue Global AC570 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh AC570 unit asks you to critique a data visualization and redesign it. Begin by stating the comparison the chart's readers need to make, since every design choice should serve it. Describe the original chart precisely. Then critique it in numbered points, covering whether it shows the right measure, whether its encoding lets readers compare accurately, distortions such as three-dimensional effects, labeling and legends, and whether it gives a reference for normal. Present a redesign that fixes each problem, describing the chart type, measure, sorting, reference lines and title, and explain what it reveals. Close with what the redesign still cannot show. Few and Tufte, with the course analytics text, should be referenced in APA 7.
How this AC570 Unit 7 example is built
The sample states the comparison: which facilities credit more than their size and activity explain. The original is a three-dimensional pie titled Credits by Facility, FY2025, with 31 slices. Five points follow: share of dollars rewards size, angles defeat comparison of Facility 9 at 4.85, Facility 22 at 4.77 and Facility 31 at 4.28 percent, the tilt exaggerates front slices, the legend forces lookups, and nothing marks normal. The highlighted sentence states the main point. The redesign is a sorted dot plot of credits as a share of billed rent with a 6.5 percent median line and regression bands, placing Facility 9 inside its band and Facility 22 above, followed by its limits.
Where the points sit in the AC570 Unit 7 rubric
Visualization critiques in AC570 earn points for judging a chart against its purpose and redesigning it accordingly. Graders reward starting from the reader's comparison, critiquing the measure as well as the design, and explaining perceptual problems such as angle judgments and three-dimensional distortion with support from the literature. The redesign should fix each named problem and reveal the comparison, with a title that states the finding. Acknowledging what the redesign cannot show demonstrates judgment. Critiques that list style complaints without addressing the measure, or that propose a new chart without explaining what it reveals, lose credit. Clear structure and APA 7 references support the work.
Common AC570 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Common Unit 7 weaknesses start with criticizing colors and fonts while leaving the wrong measure in place. Students say a pie chart is bad without explaining why it fails this particular comparison. The redesign is another chart of credit dollars, which still rewards size. Reference lines and sorting are missing, so the reader cannot tell what is high. Titles describe the data rather than the finding. The critique never mentions what the new chart cannot show. When your section supplies another chart, we can judge it against its purpose and design a replacement. Many students also forget to show the redesign itself rather than describing it, which leaves graders unable to see whether the fixes work.
Get an AC570 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the chart your Unit 7 prompt supplies, or a screenshot from your own work with identifying details removed, plus the rubric and the audience it names. The critique, a redesign built on the comparison that audience needs and a note on what the new chart still misses return inside 24-48h. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC570 papers and MS in Accounting samples
- AC570 Unit 1: Data Analytics Question Discussion
- AC570 Unit 2: Analytics Project Scoping Memo
- AC570 Unit 3: Data Preparation Log
- AC570 Unit 4: Data Population Profiling Exercise
- AC570 Unit 5: Full-Population Exception Tests
- AC570 Unit 6: Regression Analysis Exercise
- AC570 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC570 Unit 9: Exception Prioritization Report
- AC570 Unit 10: Management Presentation
- AC566 Unit 7: Foreign Tax Credit Limitation Problem
- AC501 Unit 7: Revenue Arrangement Analysis
- AC557 Unit 7: Control Deficiency Evaluation Memo
- AC502 Unit 7: Professional Entity Comparison Memo
AC570 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does the critique need a redesign?
Most AC570 prompts ask for one. Where it is optional, a redesign still demonstrates that the criticism was understood. A critique listing five faults with no alternative leaves the grader unsure the writer could fix them. The sample's redesign answers each numbered point in order, so the link between fault and fix is visible. Check your prompt; a few sections want two alternative designs compared.
Why a ratio instead of credit dollars?
Because the question concerns proportion. Dollars grow with facility size, so the biggest site dominates any dollar chart regardless of how it behaves. Dividing credits by billed rent puts every facility on the same footing. The sample also notes the ratio's weakness, that low-occupancy sites bill little rent, so the redesign is framed as a way to choose where to look rather than as a verdict.
Is a pie chart ever acceptable?
For two or three parts of a whole, where the reader needs a rough sense of share, it can work. With 31 parts of similar size it fails, since the eye cannot rank angles that close together, and a three-dimensional tilt makes it worse. Graders rarely penalize the chart type itself; they penalize a type that cannot carry the comparison the page is meant to make.
Where can I find a free AC570 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC570 Unit 7 visualization critique of a 31-slice pie chart at Stowfield Storage with five points of critique, a dot plot redesign and APA 7 references.
Why switch from credit dollars to credits as a share of rent?
Because the question is about proportion, not size. A large facility credits more dollars simply because it has more tenants, so a dollar chart ranks size rather than behavior.