Question

A researcher determines that the crime rate in a city changes with the win-loss record of the city's professional football team. He concludes that the performance of the team influences the city inhabitants' behavior. Where error did he make?

A. He did not test for Statistical significance
B. He failed to control for the win-loss records of the other professional sports teams in the city
C. He overlook the placebo effect
D. He incorrectly interfere causation from correlation
E. He failed to blind his study appropriately

Answer 1

The key error the researcher made is incorrectly inferring causation from correlation between the city's crime rate and the football team's win-loss record. The two may just be correlated without one causing the other. Placebo effect and appropriate blinding are not relevant in the context of this observational study.

Step-by-step explanation:

The error that the researcher made is D. He incorrectly inferred causation from correlation. This is a common mistake in statistical analysis. While it may be true that the crime rate and the football team's win-loss record change together, this does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other to change. The two variables are correlated, but correlation does not imply causation. Both might be influenced by a third factor (e.g., economic conditions), or the observed association could be due to chance.

Testing for statistical significance (option A) and controlling for other factors (option B) are indeed important, but they are not the key error here. The placebo effect (option C) and failure to blind the study (option E) are not relevant in this context as they are more associated with experimental studies, not observational studies like this one.

Learn more about Correlation and Causation