Michelle is interested in doing research on amphibians. She’s read that in many

Question

Michelle is interested in doing research on amphibians. She’s read that in many places, frogs are seen with a lot of birth defects (missing arms, legs, dying very young etc.). This is causing a large decline in frog populations around the globe. Pollution is suspected of causing these mutations. Michelle is not so sure, and thinks it might be due to the increase in human population instead, since that could be ruining frog habitats. Working with a biology professor at the local college, she learns that the number of mutations observed in frogs in her home county has increased each of the last five years. Next, she goes to the county survey office to determine how many new roads have been built each year in the county for the last five years. This is the graph of her data:

After graphing her results, she concludes that human populations do indeed have an effect of frog mutations. What is the best analysis of this argument?

a) Michelle has proven an important connection between human population growth and frog death.

b) Michelle’s work proves nothing. It’s only one graph. She should repeat her analysis in another county just to be sure.

c) Michelle’s research is interesting, but she may be confusing causation with correlation.

Explanation / Answer

Michelle's research is showing a strong linear relationship and hence, a strong correlation but she is making interpretations about causation whereas correlation never implies causation.

Hence,

Option C is correct,

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects