One of the most commonly used charts for data exploration is the bar chart, which can be used to compare different variables and make comparisons between them. For example, a bar chart can be used to illustrate the number of people belonging to each age group in a population. The data exploration functions this chart can perform include finding out how many people belong to each age group, as well as comparing proportions between different age groups (see Figure 1).
An alternative chart that could also display this information is a line graph (see Figure 2). Like with a bar chart, it can show how many people belong to each age group and make comparisons between them. However, it offers an additional benefit by being able to track changes over time – something that may not be possible with a bar chart.
Another popular type of chart for data exploration is the pie chart (see Figure 3). This visual representation allows users to quickly identify what proportion of their sample falls within specific categories or values. It has the same basic functions as other types of charts such as identifying numbers or percentages related to individual items in its dataset and making simple comparisons between values and/or items; however, it lacks any ability for analyzing trends over time like line graphs do. An alternative way for presenting this type of information would be using histograms which are particularly useful when looking at frequencies and distributions (see Figure 4). Histograms allow for convenient comparison between proportions within discrete intervals and tracking changes over time which could prove beneficial depending on your needs.
In conclusion, all four charts discussed here offer different advantages when engaging in data exploration; understanding these differences is vital when choosing what type of visual representation best suits your needs.
they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right goal and for a worthwhile motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury caused by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is significantly more upright than Vittola’s view however infers similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed just for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another in light of the fact that they have been a soldier. They should be treated as compassionately as could really be expected. Be that as it may, the circumstance is raised on the off chance that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, everything being equal. Generally speaking, jus in bello recommends in wars, mischief must be utilized against warriors, never against the honest. Yet, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the district. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the guard of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Subsequently, albeit the present world has created, we can see not vastly different from the innovator accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more segment of the hypothesis of the simply war. By and by, we can in any case reason that there can’t be one authoritative hypothesis of the simply war hypothesis in view of its normativity.
Jus post bellum
At last, jus post bellum proposes that the moves we ought to initiate after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). First and foremost, Vittola contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is underlined. For instance, the Versailles arrangement forced after WWI is tentatively excessively unforgiving, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very varying perspectives. Minimalists recommend a more tolerant methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both monetarily and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last case, notwithstanding, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it observes the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is entirely contestable and can contend in various ways. Nonetheless, the foundation of a fair harmony is urgent, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing nearer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). By the by, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it tends to be either ethically dubious or reasonable relying upon the proportionality of the situation. Thusly, there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show ho
