Surprisingly, my data was not very spread out. It only included a cluster of 7 ages which were 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. So the range was 6. Due to this small range, and no outliers, the standard deviation was 1.21621695. Since my range was so small I was also able to just list each age instead of having to group ages which made the data easier to present as well. 

After reviewing the one variable statistics from Excel I was not surprised that the mean, median, mode, and midrange were so close in value. The statistics are as follows, mean: 26.52, median: 26, mode: 26, and midrange: 27. Since the range and standard deviation were so small, the other statistics ended up being so close. So, I think that any of these four statistics would be reliable in seeing what the highest frequency was. 

I think the histogram illustrated the data the best overall because of how clear and concise the data was presented. The y-axis showed the exact frequency number so there is little confusion about the value. The bars also easily show the frequency and you don’t have to worry about reading the numbers. For example, the tallest bar is the highest frequency, and the shortest bar is the lowest frequency. In contrast, the line graph displayed it poorly. To me it looks random and you can’t tell what the highest or lowest frequency was. I think a line graph would be best to show a gradual increase or decrease over time.