Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures? Seems like they're attempting to exaggerate the race and gender differences, even though they'd be perfectly obvious even with a fair graph. Real credibility own-goal, especially given the topic at discussion.
--edit-- Top of the range is also varying between each graph, smaller issue but still ... weird. If you're trying to accurately convey percentages, this is not the way to do it.
A percentage chart does not always have to start at zero. Scaling the y-axis to the range of the data is commonly used to make within-chart trends easier to see. I don't think this is evidence of a nefarious motive... it looks more like a stylistic choice.
It doesn't have to, but shifting the y-axis to exaggerate differences is like the most textbook example of deception in statistics. In that sense, if you want your work to be taken seriously, especially when it purports to be more accurate than other statistics, it's certainly a choice.
> Why is the y-axis not starting at 0% for all measures?
Honestly, look at the graphs you see today. Nobody starts at zero any more, with the two stacked tildes interrupting the vertical axis to indicate an omitted range.
I imagine this bad habit started in the 90s when no affordable/free graphing software had the feature. Then it fossilised into graphing ineptitude.
The races, as seen in american sociology have a socioeconomic and historical reality which makes them interesting to track regardless. The racial segregation laws of the past were real, and this has had consequences that are still very real regardless whether the race concept is used correctly in a biological sense.
--edit-- Top of the range is also varying between each graph, smaller issue but still ... weird. If you're trying to accurately convey percentages, this is not the way to do it.