To determine which statement is supported by the table, let's analyze and interpret the data provided about support for political candidates by household income levels:
The table gives the following data points:
- For households with an income of less than [tex]$50k:
- Clinton: 36%
- Trump: 53%
- Other/no answer: 11%
- For households with an income between $[/tex]50k and [tex]$100k:
- Clinton: 30%
- Trump: 46%
- Other/no answer: 24%
- For households with an income of more than $[/tex]100k:
- Clinton: 30%
- Trump: 47%
- Other/no answer: 23%
Observations:
1. For the income group under [tex]$50k, Trump has the highest support at 53%, with Clinton at 36%, and other/no answer at 11%.
2. For the income group between $[/tex]50k and [tex]$100k, Trump still leads with 46%, followed by Clinton at 30%, and other/no answer at 24%.
3. For the income group over $[/tex]100k, Trump is again the leading candidate with 47%, Clinton at 30%, and other/no answer at 23%.
From the given percentages, we observe the following:
- While Trump consistently has the highest support across all income brackets, the percentage differences are not drastic.
- Clinton's support is relatively consistent, only showing a slight decrease as income rises.
- The percentage for other/no answer differs slightly but does not show a significant trend across income levels.
Conclusion:
The differences in support percentages for the political candidates based on income brackets are relatively minimal. This suggests that while household income may have some correlation to political ideology, it is not a dominant or clear-cut factor. Therefore, the most appropriate statement supported by the table is:
Household income may be a weak indicator of political ideology.
