This is a stupid mistake that nobody else should or ever would make. I'm writing this so others might profit from my foolishness. I am aware of the irony of these statements.
Real evidence of contribution is not necessarily direct evidence of cause/effect. I ruled out answer choice A because I thought that the stimulus narrowed the scope to evidence that directly proports to a cause/effect relationship. Sadly, I was swayed by the term "real", which we all know is fairly relative.
We all know that you can't conclude a cause/effect relationship based on corelative evidence. However, you can use correlative evidence to suggest a "probably" argument. This is what answer choice A proposes.
Learn from my pain.
1 post • Page 1 of 1