To accurately describe the graph based on the provided statements, we need to analyze the tips and cumulative frequency for each day.
-
Day 5 was Marc's lowest tip day and caused a steeper increase in the cumulative frequency line.
- This statement is likely incorrect because if Day 5 was the lowest tip day, it would not cause a steeper increase in the cumulative frequency line.
-
Day 3 was Marc's highest tip day and the cumulative frequency line remained stagnant.
- This statement suggests that even though Day 3 had the highest tip, the cumulative frequency did not change, which doesn't make sense.
-
Day 5 was Marc's lowest tip day and the cumulative frequency line remained stagnant.
- If Day 5 was the lowest tip day, it would likely not be characterized by a stagnant cumulative frequency line, unless the tips for the previous days were low.
-
Day 3 was Marc's highest tip day and caused a steeper increase in the cumulative frequency line.
- If Day 3 had the highest tips, it would indeed cause a noticeable increase in the cumulative frequency line.
Based on the logical deductions, the most accurate statement would likely be:
Day 3 was Marc's highest tip day and caused a steeper increase in the cumulative frequency line.
This assumes that the graph is structured in a way where Day 3's tips would lead to an increase in the cumulative total, consistent with what is typically shown in such graphs.