Yes, it makes it possible to clearly see all the errors.
Someone remarked that the numbers add up to more than hundred percent for the first year, and the confusion is because the y axis is mislabelled. It should say "Cost for team as percentage of revenue".
Also, the first two years shouldn't be plotted as part of the line as they are just two data points in total for these years and since there is considerable spread in better represented data we know any single data point is probably not representative. At least not if you insist on using decimals.
It's also a bit unclear what the line for "more than seven years since funding" comes from, since the provided summary table only shows up to year 7. It seems the data table truncates, but there are two companies that cover age 16-24 in the spreadsheet, once again giving a very small sample.
Comments
Yes, it makes it possible to clearly see all the errors.
Someone remarked that the numbers add up to more than hundred percent for the first year, and the confusion is because the y axis is mislabelled. It should say "Cost for team as percentage of revenue".
Also, the first two years shouldn't be plotted as part of the line as they are just two data points in total for these years and since there is considerable spread in better represented data we know any single data point is probably not representative. At least not if you insist on using decimals.
It's also a bit unclear what the line for "more than seven years since funding" comes from, since the provided summary table only shows up to year 7. It seems the data table truncates, but there are two companies that cover age 16-24 in the spreadsheet, once again giving a very small sample.