|Click for big. [from http://www.icdd.com/products/2011SalesCatalog.pdf]|
Probably. The 2011 list price could actually be more than $8000, because "$8000" is the second of eight labels on the right Y axis whereas the red line treads below the second of only seven horizontal lines across the graph. AAAARRRGGH.
Fourth, I have to ask why the right Y axis goes up to a price of $38000 when they don't sell anything worth more than $8000. (Probably.) Should they have started the right Y axis at zero and topped it out at $10000? Probably.
The truth is, what they did is they plotted the number of "entries" and got a nice looking upwards slope. Then they they plotted the "price" and got two noisy, up-and-down but vaguely increasing swaths across the middle of the plot. So they jacked up the maximum value of the "price" axis until the list price of the first data point, 1987, sat on top of the number of entries for that year. Hence the seemingly random top price of $38000. For the minimum on the price axis, they either left Excel's default nonzero value, or they actually changed it from zero to $3000 to make their prices look smaller. I can understand that they're trying to imply that as time has gone on, users have actually gotten proportionally more value (entries) for a given price. But in order to make a proportionality argument, you have to put a straight line through zero ... and zero is off the bottom of this plot.
Putting yourself in your audience's shoes and presenting information well is a learned skill. Failing to do so makes you look like an amateur, which is forgivable but doesn't build your audience's confidence in you. It's worse to fail to be honest about how well the actual numbers support your interpretation of them. That manipulation erodes your audience's trust in you, which is almost always a more valuable asset than winning a particular argument.