2
untils
what would lead a historian to consider two events to have a relationship of
correlation rather than causation?
o
a. if the events were once considered unimportant but are now seen
as influential
o
b. if the events have not yet been extensively studied by other
historians
o
c. if the events happened around the same time but one did not
cause the other
o
d. if the events occurred in the same location but during different
historical periods

The correct answer is C, If the events happened around the same time but one did not cause the other.

Explanation:

A relationship of correlation in history means that two or more events are somehow associated. How these events are associated can take many forms: maybe they have the same cause, maybe they had similar impacts, they might have happened at the same time, or not at the same time but in similar ways, etc. Thus a relationship of association can take many forms.

One form that a relationship of association can NOT take is if one event caused the other because this relationship is more specific: one event triggered the other so this second event depends on the first event.

The difference is that if one says two events are associated, that doesn't necessarily mean one event depends on the other which is the case when one event caused another event and thus a dependence relationship exists.

where is the picture?