Читать книгу Essentials of Sociology - George Ritzer - Страница 95

Back to Figure

In the graph, there are five curves that highlight the mean income received by each fifth and top 5 percent of all races during the period 1967 to 2017.

The X axis represents the years and ranges from 1967 to 2017, rising in increments of 3 years. The Y axis represents the mean income in thousands of dollars and ranges from 0 to 400.

The first curve showcases the top 5 percent’s income. This curve begins at 170 in 1967 and has a steady rise to reach the 200 thousand mark in the mid-1980s period. After this, the increase is faster, with the 250-mark achieved in 1990, and 300 level in the late 1990s. A high of nearly 340 is reached by 2000, but post this, the movement of the curve becomes very choppy. Over the next decade, the curve see-saws between 340 and 310, sinking to a low of almost 300 in 2009. But once past this phase, it attains new heights, crossing 350 in 2014 and touching a level of almost 380 in 2017.

The lowest fifth curve begins at a level slightly over 10 in 1967. This curve continues as a line almost parallel to the X axis, barely rising throughout the period of the graph. It ends the graph in 2017 at almost the same level as when it began the graph.

The second fifth curve is a line that parallels the X axis. It begins at 30 in 1967 and continues as a horizontal line throughout the period of the graph. Barely moving, it ends the graph in 2017 at a level of around 40.

The third fifth curve is another line that is almost parallel to the X axis. However, this line shows more movement than the earlier curves. It begins at almost 50 in 1967 and until 1965, it remains almost parallel to the axis at this level. However, there are slight movements to the curve post this period, until it ends the graph at a level close to 60 in 2017.

The fourth fifth curve begins at a level of 60 in 1967. It has a slight upward movement throughout the graph period, reaching levels of 70 by the 1990s and nearly 80 by the turn of the century. However, post this, there is a slowdown, although the curve makes up for it in the years following 2014, and ends the graph at a level of 100.

The highest fifth graph is the only one of the fifth curves to show much movement. This curve begins at around 110 in 1967 and shows a consistent rise, attaining levels of 150 by 1985, and nearly 190 by 2000. Post this period, it stagnates for a few years, before breaking out again after 2014 to cross 200 and end the graph at nearly 220 in 2017.

Back to Figure

The bar graph shows the difference in perceptions of black and white opportunities for jobs, housing, and education across two time periods. The Y axis represents the percentages ranging from 0 to 100 while the X axis represents jobs for blacks and whites. There are two bars for each race, one for 1999 and another for 2016.

The 1999 level for Whites is 79, and the 2016 level is 69.

The 1999 level for Blacks is 40 and the 2016 level is 32.

Back to Figure

The line graph depicts the change in use of marijuana among U.S. school kids in the period 1976 to 2017.

While the X axis denotes the years from 1976 to 2017, the Y axis shows the percentage reporting marijuana use in the previous 12 months.

The curve begins at a level of 44.5 percent in 1976. This rises to a high of 50 percent in 1980, before a slow decent begins. The curve reaches levels of 40 percent in 1985, 30 percent in 1990 and 21.9 percent in 1993. Post this however, the curve once again starts rising and stabilizes around 35 percent for almost a decade. It ends the graph at a level of 37.1 percent in 2017.

The data of the graph is sourced from: Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, Richard A. Miech, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg. Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2017: Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use, Table 6.

Back to Figure

In the image, differently colored figures illustrate how random and stratified samples are chosen from populations.

The figure has two parts; while the first depicts the choosing of random samples, the second illustrates stratified sample choice.

Random Sample

A population of 12 figures, each of which is separately numbered and shown in ascending order, are shown as four figures each in three rows. A sample of 4 is chosen from these – figures 2,5, 8,10 are the samples chosen randomly from the population. Arrows point from where they were chosen.

Stratified Sample

In this, the individually numbered figures are randomly arranged in 3 columns and 4 rows. A sample is chosen from each row, and arrows point from where they were chosen. The chosen samples are 2, 10, 8 and 5.

The data has been sourced from Dan Kernler, Associate Professor of Mathematics, Elgin Community College.

Back to Figure

The figure is a happiness map depicting levels of happiness among the citizens of various countries included in the surveys from 2010 to 2018.

A legend to the left of the map lists the top three happiest countries as well as the least happy nations. They are mentioned below alongside their ranking:

 Three Happiest Countries:FinlandNorwayDenmark

 Three Least Happy Countries:156. South Sudan157. Central African Republic158. Burundi

The legend also provides a color-coded 10-point range for the happiness index, ranked as happy, average and unhappy as well as a listing for nations with no data.

The top ten happiest nations are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia.

The United States, European nations such as Austria, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and United Kingdom as well as Israel, Costa Rica, and United Arab Emirates are in the next happiness band.

Many Latin American nations like Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina as well as France are the in third band.

Average happiness nations include the next thirty nations such as Central American nations such as Trinidad & Tobago, El Salvador, and Nicaragua as well as many European countries including Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, and Poland.

Russia, and Central Asian republics such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan come in the next band.

China, Mongolia and east Asian states of Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and other Asian countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Bhutan fill out the top 100 happiness ranks.

India, African nations such as South Africa, Ghana, Namibia, and Egypt come towards the later part of the average happiness bands.

Least happy nations include war zones such as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen as well as African nations like South Sudan, Central African Republic and Burundi.

Back to Figure

The figure shows the Milgram Experiment as a diagram.

On the left, separated from the others is a learner, marked as L, whose arm has a wire connected to the equipment of the teacher in the next room. The teacher, designated by T, is seated in the next room along with the Experimenter or E. E has a card and a machinery on the table before him, while T, seated at right angles with his back to E, also has a panel of buttons on the table.