DA0-002 Visualization and Reporting Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Introduction → Methods → Results

  Why it's wrong here

  Introduction–methods–results mirrors a scientific or technical report structure, describing how analysis was performed; the stem presents no methodology, only churn, a pricing event and campaign impact. It is tempting because analysts often document methods — correct when the audience needs to validate analytical rigour and reproducibility.

• ✗

  Hook → Context → Call to action

  Why it's wrong here

  The hook–context–call-to-action arc opens with an attention-grabbing hook before background; here the analyst leads with the current churn rate as the situation, not a hook. It is tempting because calls to action feature in persuasive narratives — correct when the opening must seize attention before any context is given.

• ✗

  Problem → Solution → Evidence

  Why it's wrong here

  Problem–solution–evidence frames a solution before supporting proof; the stem shows the pricing event as cause, then campaign impact, without proposing a solution first. It is tempting because it suits recommendation decks — correct when the analyst must argue for a specific remedy and then justify it.

• ✓

  Situation → Complication → Resolution

  Why this is correct

  The analyst establishes the current churn baseline (situation), introduces the pricing change as the causal disruption (complication), then presents the retention campaign as the remedy (resolution). This maps directly onto the Situation → Complication → Resolution arc, structuring the narrative around cause and response.

Go deeper

Related to this question