You conduct a quasi-experiment to assess the impact of raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour. You find that there are more accidents in the 6-month period following the speed limit change than in the 6-month period before the speed limit change. Although it is tempting to say that raising the speed limit caused higher accident rates, you must be careful because. A) you don't have an independent variable in this design. B) you have an adequate understanding of the operational definition of an "accident" C) other variables (for example, cheaper gasoline or the season of the year during which the change was instituted) may also be affecting accident rates. D) there is no problem with drawing this causal conclusion.

C) other variables (for example, cheaper gasoline or the season of the year during which the change was instituted) may also be affecting accident rates.

Explanation: Before making conclusion on causality, several other independent variables should be considered before arriving at a reasonable conclusion. Accident causing factors are numerous which could include, season of the year in which the change in speed limit was made, this may have a say in the weather condition which could impede vision, which could also result in accident , gasoline type, and other events which occurred within the speed change period which could have impacted the accident rate should be considered before arriving at a conclusion.

it all depends on how long the hours are. i think they wouldn't approve of it. in my opinion.

the answer is : the nut cases won't quit battling and their recurrence of flights will going to continue as before despite the fact that the battles are less hazardous now because of their bills have all of a sudden been blunted.   in the falcon dove diversion, two creatures will drive towards one another to crush one another, among the two one will win and other will swerve. in this way, clearly, the battle will be dependably there between two creatures for the assets or mate.