Summary statistics for 1,180 accounts' days to pay, chosen for a right-skewed shape and displayed by payment terms, make up this GB701 Unit 2 descriptive summary exercise. Searches like "gb 701 unit 2 assignment example", "gb701 unit 2 sample" and "gb701 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GB701 Unit 2 descriptive summary exercise looks like
Four pages and two figures, with the workbook attached. A variable paragraph defines days to pay as each account's average from invoice date to cleared payment over twelve months and names the source report. Table 1 carries count, mean 40.5, 5 percent trimmed mean 39.5, median 37.8, standard deviation 15.1, interquartile range 19.0, skewness 1.04, excess kurtosis 1.31, minimum 12.0 and maximum 106.8. Figure 1 is a histogram in five-day bins, net-30 and net-45 accounts in two stacked panels on a shared axis. Figure 2 places the two box plots side by side. Table 2 repeats the summary by terms: 895 net-30 accounts with a median of 35.4 and 285 net-45 accounts at 46.2. Its last paragraph says what the displays were built to reveal and what they cannot show.
How a GB701 Unit 2 example is structured
The exercise is organized around a defense, since the prompt in most sections asks why this display and not another. Its first argument concerns shape. Skewness above one and a mean pulled almost three days past the median justify leading with the median and interquartile range, while the mean stays in the table for readers who need totals. The second argument concerns grouping. Pooled, the histogram shows a long right shoulder that looks like a few slow customers; split by terms, the shoulder resolves into a second group paying under different contracts, with a quarter of net-45 accounts beyond 60 days. Panels share one horizontal axis so the shift is visible without reading numbers. A rejected alternative, a pie chart of aging buckets, is named with its fault: buckets discard the distance between 61 and 106 days.
Defining the variable before summarizing it
Average days to pay could mean several things. The exercise fixes one: the mean interval from invoice date to cleared payment per account over the last twelve closed months, excluding credit memos. A definition this narrow lets a later unit reproduce the figure exactly.
Why the median leads
With skewness of 1.04 and a maximum near 107 days, the mean describes almost no actual customer. The median of 37.8 and the middle half, 29.6 to 48.6 days, describe the typical account, so they head the narrative and the mean follows.
Panels instead of a pooled chart
Stacked panels on a common axis show the net-45 distribution sitting about eleven days to the right. The pooled chart had turned that shift into an apparent tail. Common scaling matters, because separate axes would hide exactly the difference the figure exists to show.
What the trimmed mean adds
Dropping the top and bottom 5 percent moves the mean from 40.5 to 39.5 days. That one-day change tells a reader the extreme accounts matter without dominating, a fact that becomes useful when regression diagnostics are read later in the course.
Limits stated plainly
The summary describes one year of one firm's customers. It says nothing about why terms differ or whether slow payers are slow by choice, and the closing paragraph states this rather than leaving a committee member to raise it.
Where marks go in GB701 Unit 2
Descriptive exercises in GB701 are rarely marked on arithmetic, which software handles, and often on whether each choice is defended. A summary reporting only the mean and standard deviation of a skewed variable draws an immediate comment. Charts produced with default settings, unlabeled axes, arbitrary bins or separately scaled panels read as output rather than analysis. A display defended in general terms, histograms show distributions, earns less than one defended by what it reveals in these particular data. Definitions left vague, especially which days count and which transactions are excluded, cost credit because nothing downstream can be checked. Instructors also look for a sentence on what the summary cannot establish. Tables formatted to APA 7, with numbered titles and notes explaining abbreviations, are the doctoral expectation.
Get a GB701 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Attach the dataset or a description of it, along with the Unit 2 instructions and your rubric. Statistics chosen for the variable's actual shape, displays defended in writing and tables laid out to your section's formatting rules come back in a custom summary within 24-48h. There is no charge for a first sample.
GB701 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which statistics does a GB701 descriptive exercise need?
Those that describe the variable's shape honestly. For a symmetric distribution, the mean and standard deviation may suffice. For a skewed one like days to pay, the median and interquartile range belong in the lead, with skewness reported and the mean retained for readers who need totals. Instructors typically ask for the choice to be justified rather than for a fixed list.
Should software output appear in the body?
Usually it goes in an appendix. Raw output from Excel, SPSS or R carries labels a reader does not need and omits ones they do. The body presents rebuilt tables with clear titles and notes, while the appendix lets an instructor confirm the numbers were produced by the software rather than typed by hand.
How many figures are enough?
Enough to show what the text claims, and seldom more than two or three. Each figure should earn its place by revealing something a table cannot, such as the shift between two groups in this sample. A figure that repeats a table's content adds length without adding evidence, and doctoral readers notice that kind of padding quickly.