Agovernment 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? a. it establishes a historical narrative. b. it confuses correlation with causation. c. it claims that the law has no good cause. d. it fails to prove correlation.

The answer would be:

B. It confuses correlation with causation.

Correlation is when something is related but not caused by somthing else, causation states that something is caused by the movement of something else, if you pass the law and then the robberies happend there is some correlation to some grade, but not causation, because you can´t prove that the law caused the robberies.

The answer is B

Explanation: :)

in february 1787, congress decided that a convention should be convened to revise the articles of confederation, the nation’s first constitution. in may, 55 delegates came to philadelphia, and the constitutional convention began. debates erupted over representation in congress, over slavery, and over the new executive branch. the debates continued through four hot and muggy months. but eventually the delegates reached compromises, and on september 17, they produced the u.s. constitution, replacing the articles with the governing document that has functioned effectively for more than 200 years.

what the first or next guys says