# Do graphs always have to have 0 at the beginning of each axis>

Watch
Announcements
#1
Hi, doing my chemistry A2 coursework right now, and it involves many graphs!

Does 0 always have to be the number in the bottom left hand corner, where the graphs start?

Or can it be another number that matches the scale of the graph?

Thank you
0
8 years ago
#2
It can be any number, as long as the scale is consistent, going at regular intervals.

So it doesn't have to be:
0 1 2 3 4

It can be:
2 3 4 5 6

It can't be:
1 4 5 6 8
0
8 years ago
#3
(Original post by navarre)
Hi, doing my chemistry A2 coursework right now, and it involves many graphs!

Does 0 always have to be the number in the bottom left hand corner, where the graphs start?

Or can it be another number that matches the scale of the graph?

Thank you
For the y-axis you should try to make it 0 to avoid misunderstandings, but if you do start at a value, don't get your thought of proportions wrong when you come to take a look at it. (e.g. what would have been a shallow gradient now looks steep)
EDIT: Scrap the below, misunderstood the question XD
It depends really on what makes sense :L
Say that the x-axis was the concentration of the reactant being added. If it was zero then then it would make sense that the rate of reaction would be 0.

It depends on the context.
0
8 years ago
#4
I would always start an axis at 0 but include an axis break if the lower numbers were irrelevant. But maybe that's just the way I've been taught
0
8 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nirgilis)
I would always start an axis at 0 but include an axis break if the lower numbers were irrelevant. But maybe that's just the way I've been taught
We do that for Maths, but we don't in Biology - we just start off at whatever number, as long as the scale is constant and proportional - I'm assuming it's the same for Chemistry.
0
8 years ago
#6
(Original post by Nirgilis)
I would always start an axis at 0 but include an axis break if the lower numbers were irrelevant. But maybe that's just the way I've been taught
This would be my suggestion, you can't go wrong with it really.
0
8 years ago
#7
The x-axis (well, abscissa) does not start at 0 for a binomial distribution, I don't think. I've always seen 0 placed a bit after the origin so you can see the line.
0
8 years ago
#8
Either have larger scale?
Or start from 100 then go up in Hundreds, I think you have to put a squiggle in the Axis...
What ever works, the Data should cover more than half the graph, and the scales should be consistent
0
11 months ago
#9
(Original post by truthisevil)
It can be any number, as long as the scale is consistent, going at regular intervals.

So it doesn't have to be:
0 1 2 3 4

It can be:
2 3 4 5 6

It can't be:
1 4 5 6 8
It CAN be
1 2 4 8 16
1 3 9 27 81
1 10 100 1000
though (but only in very rare circumstances)

This is called a logarithmic scale
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### New lockdown - Do you agree schools and universities should remain open?

Yes (55)
36.18%
No (80)
52.63%
I don't know (17)
11.18%