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: :)

monopolies  came to the united states with the colonial administration. the large-scale public works needed to make the new world hospitable to old world immigrants required large companies to carry them out. these companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. even after the american revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land

read more on -

what's the passage bud?