Pdf Level 3 Unit 18 M3

Words: 740
Pages: 3

Table 2's coefficient of variation of 71% has a lower percentage than table 14's 87.39% demonstrating that the dispersion of data in table 2 is lower than that of table 14. Table 10 shows that the mean is greater than the median, this shows that the data skews to the right, The Figure 2 Box Plot shows that the data is spread out signifying the finding for Beijing has a high range of £24,865,000. The sample variance is also high for Beijing contributing that the data is widely spread. As the standard deviation is lower than the mean, this suggests the data is more clustered around the mean rather than being spread out across all quartiles, opposes to Table 22 as the mean and standard deviation for the Tokyo Olympics are similar, therefore, the data is more evenly spread. …show more content…
Their funding is between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000 The frequency charts for London 2012 Olympics show that there is more sport being funded, there was £27,287,600 as they didn't have to pay for the teams to stay abroad, because London was hosting the Olympic games this, therefore, proves that the games were able to fund more sports, London had the most sports funded.
This contrasts with the 2000 and 2004 Olympic games as the maximum funding was £11,400,000 (239% less than London 2012). The reason for this may be that in 1996 the National Lottery funded 75% of the Olympics (Wigmore, 2018) since then there has been a significant increase in funding which is probative on the frequency charts.
Figure 11 shows that the correlation between funding and total medals won shows slight positive linear correlation, this gives an indication that in this Olympics, the more funding put into a sport, the more medals were