For example, in his article entitled “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within” (one of the readings from last week), Tufte explains that it would have been absolutely ridiculous to present data about survival rates of various cancers in graph after graph after graph. He says, “Everything is wrong with these smarmy, incoherent graphs: uncomparative, thin data-density, chartjunk, encoded legends, meaningless color, logotype branding, indifference to content and evidence. . . The best way to show the cancer data is the original table with its good comparative structure and reporting of standard errors” (20-22). Although Tufte uses this example to demonstrate the shortcomings of PowerPoint, he indirectly touches upon the attention to the rhetorical situation that is necessary to effectively arrange this data on cancer: datum must easily be compared to other datum, color shouldn’t detract the viewer’s attention from the numbers, etc. Maybe if we think of data as being just as influenced by the rhetorical situation as written communication, we’ll be less intimidated to arrange and present graphs, tables, charts, etc.