Final answer:
The scenario described indicates that the correct answer is 'd) Temporal precedence', as it fits the principle that the cause precedes the effect. This must not be confused with simple correlation, which only implies a relationship, not causality.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering the relationship between two variables, it's essential to distinguish between correlation and causation. In the scenario where an effect occurs after a proposed cause and only in the presence of that proposed cause, what we're looking at is temporal precedence. This is one of the criteria used to establish a causal relationship, suggesting that the cause must occur before the effect.
However, one must be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. A correlation indicates a relationship or association between variables, where changes in one variable are associated with changes in another. Yet, correlation does not imply that one variable causes the other to change. The fallacy of false cause warns us against assuming a causal relationship when there may be no direct connection between the two events or variables. For example, while swimsuits and sunburns might be correlated (often occurring together), swimsuits do not cause sunburns.
In summary, the situation described fits the concept of temporal precedence within the discussion of causality. This is distinct from correlation, reverse causation, and the other provided options, confirming the correct answer as 'd) Temporal precedence'.