Question

question 1-19
a group of students were doing a project comparing the amount of sugar in a dessert and the number of calories the dessert contained. they collected data from a variety of desserts, and they found that there was a strong, positive correlation between the amount of sugar and the number of calories in the dessert. should the group of students conclude that this positive correlation shows a causal relationship?

• no, because correlation does not prove causation, other factors like fat content could affect calories.
• yes, because sugar and calories are related, so sugar must be the cause of higher calories.
• no, because the correlation is strong, so it must be causal even without other evidence.
• yes, because a strong positive correlation always means one variable causes the other.

Explanation:

To determine the answer, we use the concept that correlation (a relationship between two variables) does not imply causation (one variable causing the other). Other factors (like fat, ingredients, etc.) can influence the number of calories in a dessert, so a strong positive correlation between sugar and calories doesn't mean sugar causes the calories. Let's analyze each option:

• Option 1: "No, because correlation does not prove causation, other factors like fat content could affect calories." This matches the concept of correlation vs. causation.
• Option 2: "Yes, because sugar and calories are related, so sugar must be the cause of higher calories." This is incorrect as relatedness (correlation) doesn't mean causation.
• Option 3: "No, because the correlation is strong, so it must be causal even without other evidence." This is incorrect; a strong correlation still doesn't prove causation.
• Option 4: "Yes, because a strong positive correlation always means one variable causes the other." This is incorrect as correlation doesn't always imply causation.

Answer:

A. No, because correlation does not prove causation, other factors like fat content could affect calories.