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.

jcadsxjdas

explanation:

doisdforiew

due to inefficiency of management, the business plan has failed

idk what right product means but i assume it's this one since this was the last one left after i did the other three

the finance team has misjudged the requirement of business plan and chosen a wrong line of credit

operations risk is when the employees make a mistake

flash floods have damaged all machinery in the main manufacturing

natural disasters include anything ruined in the business by the weather or other disasters such as earthquakes

there have been foreign exchange rate fluctuations

economic risks is when things in the economy changes (like interest rates, currency value). the government has a large part in controlling this