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: :)

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.

soviet influence spread across eastern europe sharply during and after wwii. the soviet armies liberated the countries in eastern europe and occupied them from the germans as they were forced to retreat towards germany.