Zpoints
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. why is the politician's argument not
very convincing?
o
a. it establishes a historical narrative,
o
b, it fails to prove correlation,
o
c. it claims that the law has no good cause,
o
d. it confuses correlation with causation,

The politician’s argument does not be convincing because it confuses the term correlation with the causation.

Option D

Explanation:

It is logically not reasonable to link the two events (correlation and causation) as they are influenced by different cause and effect scenarios. If there is an increase in the taxes on banks, the effect should be protests by the banks as the banks and its workers.

Because the people who are working in the banks are the people who are affected by this action, not the robbers. The politician’s argument does not be convincing because it confuses the term correlation with the causation.

which

like dude you only explained

the problem not the

hi how are you doing today? if you ever need just tell me