upr000149 293

\ Page 10 COMMENT When the figures have been grouped and summarized, certain facts emerge:- 1» Uniformity of Data The elimination of a few extreme items reveals how uniform the data really are. The following table shows the range of variation for the 286 cities as a whole. In every instance, the removal of 20$ of the cases (the extreme 10$ at either end) reduces the range at least 50$j and if only the middle 50$ of the cases are considered, the range is reduced at least 70$. TABLE 1. TOTAL RANGE 80$ RANGE (Without Lowest and Highest 10$) 50$ RANGE (Without Lowest and Highest 25$) Median Low High Diff. Low High Diff. Low High Diff. Ratio, Pop. to Users 4.4 2.5 8.7 6.2 5.5 5.7 2.2 3.7 4.7 1.0 Water Charge to Users on Monthly Basis:- Minimum $ • 83 $.09 $2.00 $1.91 $.45 $1.42 $.97 $.55 $1.05 $.50 For 3,000 Gallons 1.00 .38 3.00 2.62 .72 1.51 .79 .89 1.35 .44 For 5,000 Gallons 1.50 .53 4.00 3.47 .95 2.35 1.40 1.20 1.83 .63 2. Greatest Variation in Smallest Cities Table 1 considers the 286 municipalities as a whole. When the figures are broken down by population groups, it is evident that the groups differ con­siderably in variation. In general, cities of smaller population vary more than those of larger population. TABLE 2.______________________Ratio. Population to Users TOTAL RANGE 80$ RANGE 50$ RANGE Median Low H i g Diff. Low High Diff. Low High Diff. Total 4.4 2.5 8.7 6.2 3.5 5.7 2.2 3.7 4.7 1.0 Group I 4.6 5.6 6.2 2.6 3.8 5.5 1.7 4.0 4.8 .8 Group II 4.6 5.4 6.8 5.4 3.9 5.9 2.0 4.1 5.0 .9 Group III 4.3 2.5 8.7 6.2 5.5 5.9 2.4 J 5.8 4.9 1.1 Group IV 4.5 2.6 7.2 4.6 5.4 5.6 2.0 3.8 4.9 1.1 (cont’d)