Answer: correlation vs. causation
Explanation:
Correlation assesses the relationship between variables and can be in the same direction, where the increase in one exists as the same time as an increase in the other variable or inverse where an increase in one variable occurs when there is a decrease in the second variable. However, this correlation does not indicate causation.
Causation signifies that one variable is responsible for the occurrence of an event in the other variable. Clearly, there is no cause and effect between the number of mules and doctorate degrees in a state. Here, there is a correlation but a fundamental causative factor is absent between the two events.
<span>Arriving in New Orleans, keelboat operators would sell and trade to acquire a profitable cargo of agricultural and other manufactured wares, Kentucky whisky, and farm .... But after a while thesteamboats so increased in number and in speed that they were able to absorb the entire commerce; and then keelboating died </span><span>
</span>
The development of this technology and the underlying concepts were recognized by the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Herbert C. Brown.
Answer:
The hypothesis that will best demonstrate an economic benefit to the ranchers will be "Pastures with the highest diversity of plant species will have the highest net primary productivity."
Explanation:
This hypotheses would best demonstrate an economic benefit because it clearly states that when plant species are diverse, this will provide the highest net productivity to the ranchers. Hence if the aim of the student is to determine if increasing species diversity of edible plant would lead to great economic benefits, then this suits for the hypotheses.
Answer:
The most effective responses will be those aimed at restoring harmony between supervisors, allowing all sectors to work efficiently. The least effective responses will be those that seek to help only one supervisor or just one, or some sectors, to the detriment of the others.
Explanation:
As we can see, Jamie is in a situation where his management is very important. This is because the sector of the 9 supervisors on the front line of a given service, are in conflict with each other, which ends up harming the company's success, since it is necessary that all sectors work together.
The meeting established by Jamie, has the responsibility to evaluate the arguments of the supervisors and choose those that will bring an effective result within the company. Jamie must choose as efficient the arguments that show cooperative forms among supervisors, which promote the good functioning of all sectors. However, he must consider as non-efficient, all those arguments that provide separatist ideas and that promote the growth of only some sectors to the detriment of others.
