Question

A government passes a law increasing taxes on banks. Two days later, there are several bank robberies. A politician who opposed the taxes claims that the new law is causing bank robberies. What is wrong with the politician's argument? O A. It uses historical narrative instead of historical fact. OB. It provides only one cause for an event. OC. It ignores the importance of correlation. O D. It claims that correlation is the same as causation.​

Answer 1

The politician's argument is flawed because it claims that correlation is the same as causation. Just because two events occurred in close proximity does not necessarily mean that one caused the other. There could be other factors contributing to the increase in bank robberies, and it's also possible that the robberies would have occurred regardless of the new tax law. In order to determine causation, further evidence and analysis would be needed. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.