please make this more flowy:
Design 1 was clearly better as it consistently resulted in longer throws of the tennis ball. The average throw of design one was 35.4133 whilst the average throw of design 2 was 24.38.
The range of design 1 was also much larger than design 2, this indicated that the design was not very consistent in its use. But however during the testing it was switched in between Cooper and Riley, which is likely why the cause of the inconsistency. It is quite clear but yet also uncertain if the short throws were due to the person throwing the ball or the design itself. Even with its inconsistency, it is clear that design 2 was superior because even the farthest throw was less then minimum of design 1. Therefore, it can be concluded that the longer lever arm results in a longer throw, however some redesign on the length of the thrower would be a stronger conclusion to be made.
Design 1 clearly outperformed Design 2 by consistently achieving longer throws of the tennis ball. On average, Design 1 achieved a throw of 35.4133, while Design 2 only managed 24.38.
Not only did Design 1 excel in distance, but it also had a much wider range compared to Design 2. This suggests that Design 1 lacked consistency in its performance. An important point to consider is that during the testing, the designs were switched between Cooper and Riley, which could have contributed to the inconsistency. Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to determine whether the shorter throws were a result of the person throwing the ball or the design itself. Nonetheless, despite its inconsistency, Design 2 proved to be superior as even its farthest throw fell short of the minimum achieved by Design 1. Consequently, it can be concluded that a longer lever arm leads to a longer throw, although further adjustment to the length of the thrower would provide a stronger conclusion.