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. which of the following explains the flaw in his argument?

a. the politician is trying to create a historical narrative that explains causation
b. the law and the robberies are only correlated by the fact they both involve banks
c. the argument is based on correlation when it should be based on causation
d. the politician made his argument before the law was passed

The correct answer is B. The law and the robberies are only correlated by the fact they both involve banks

Explanation:

In the excerpt given it is explained a law was approved and two days later the bank robberies increased. However, this does not imply the law is the direct cause of the robberies, indeed, the only that can be concluded about this situation is that both events, the law, and the robbery, occurred at the same time or with little time of difference and both involve banks, which implies both the law and the robberies are only correlated, which means they are connected or have something in common that is the place where both events took place (banks). Thus, these two events are correlated not because one caused the other but because they share a commonplace which is the banks that where the places affected both by the law and the robberies.

an old person

explanation:

the answer can be "credo" it means to believe = the word credo means "an official statement of beliefs"