BTW, I'm not the OP, to whom this last is addressed.
Argh: I just failed Reading/Comprehension 101 :)
OK - I'll reword it: OP's reasoning seems to assume that air resistance is negligible, but this may not be a good assumption for experimental results from a basketball thrown in air in the real world.
I am hoping to encourage OP to use more of the data when doing the analysis... and to refer back to the data when considering the results of the analysis.
But to accurately get the maximum from the plot, you must actually fit a curve to the data, not just eyeball it. You can't assume that every data point is exactly on the fit curve.
I can tell from that statement that you have not plotted the data ;)
Anyway - I
know that.
That is why I commented in post #2 that I did not know how accurate the answer has to be. The "measurements" provided appear to be accurate to sub-atomic scales for example - I suppose it is
possible that similar sig fig would be needed in the answer. It is common in HS physics courses, however, for students to fit curves by eye alone. The process does not involve assuming that every data-point lies on the curve.
When I was designing a junior undergrad physics lab, I wanted to know how good students were at drawing "best fit" lines so I tested about 20 of them. They were well within the uncertainty by linear regression every time. They also did well sketching quadratics... though locating the maxima required more data in that area. Thus that "if the data is good" comment. You should try this some time. [*]
Whatever - we also know that OP has access to a computer, so may be able to do some sort of regression. We don't know - which is why I asked OP the question. Even if not, plotting the data and sketching in the curve (which, for this data, is feasible) will show if the calculation gives a plausible result.
i.e. if air resistance is a factor (I've plotted the data - so I know if it is or not) then the calculated value will be obviously wrong compared with the plot.
Plotting experimental data is usually a good idea anyway.
---------------------------
[*] aside: that's 20 new-entry undergrads I had direct access to ... intregued I tried it with leter years, and found that they got worse at it as they got more advanced.