Question

Use the table to answer the question.

A table shows the changing distribution and diffusion of televisions, both in the United States and worldwide. There are three columns in the table: 1954, 1970, and 2005. The first row is titled Density: Number of U.S. TVs (millions). The data are 32 in 1954, 82 in 1970, and 219 in 2005. The second row is titled U.S. diffusion: TVs per 1,000 population. The data are 196 in 1954, 395 in 1970, and 882 in 2005. The third row is titled Global diffusion: U.S. share of world’s TVs (%). The data are 86 in 1954, 25 in 1970, and 16 in 2005.

Examine the table. Which of the following conclusions could be drawn from this table regarding the distribution and diffusion of television over time?

(1 point)
Responses

The number of televisions in the United States grew by 187 percent between 1954 and 2005.

The number of televisions in the United States grew by 187 percent between 1954 and 2005.

The U.S. share of global distribution of televisions fell as television was diffused more widely outside the United States.

The U.S. share of global distribution of televisions fell as television was diffused more widely outside the United States.

Density of television ownership nearly doubled between 1954 and 2005.

Density of television ownership nearly doubled between 1954 and 2005.

The pattern of distribution was linear and regular due to the effects of hierarchical diffusion.

The pattern of distribution was linear and regular due to the effects of hierarchical diffusion.

The natural increase rate grew more rapidly than the number of televisions between 1954 and 2005.

The natural increase rate grew more rapidly than the number of televisions between 1954 and 2005.

Answer 1

Correct conclusion: "The U.S. share of global distribution of televisions fell as television was diffused more widely outside the United States."

Why: U.S. share of the world’s TVs dropped from 86% (1954) to 16% (2005) while the number of U.S. TVs and TVs per 1,000 people rose, indicating wider diffusion outside the U.S.

Why the others are incorrect:
- "Grew by 187 percent": the number rose from 32 to 219 (an increase of 187 televisions, not 187%), so that percent statement is wrong.
- "Density nearly doubled": TVs per 1,000 increased from 196 to 882 (more than quadrupled), not nearly doubled.
- "Linear/regular hierarchical diffusion": the table doesn’t show the diffusion pattern or mechanism.
- "Natural increase rate grew more rapidly...": no population growth (natural increase) data are given.