A politician campaigns on a platform of eliminating welfare benefits. One ad used by politician says: "Receipt of welfare benefits leads to poor school performance: People who receive welfare benefits have, on average, lower grades than people who do not receive welfare benefits." Construct an argument to challenge this causal reasoning. First, give three examples that drive home the point that association does not establish causation. Then, construct a plausible alterative explanation for low grades that does not involve an effect of welfare benefits on grades, but which does allow for their association. What will be an ideal response?

The campaign being put up by the politican claiming that there is a relationship between someone who recieve welfare benefits and poor school performance is a reason bereft of logic.

Firstly, academic performance is something that is being affected by an entirely diffrent reasons altogether. For example, someone that is not academically inclined is bound to perform poorly in school whether there is welfare package or not. Also, the issue of teaching materials used in teaching has an effect in the performance of the student. a situation where ther is non available for the student to use would definitely lead to poor performance of the student.

In addition, the poor perfromance of the student has a direct correlation with the teaching method adopted by the teacher rather than the welfare package. A teacher that does not deliver excellent teaching would definitely lead to student's poor performance.

The most logical explanation for the poor performance of the student could be related to challenges that the student is passing through at home that made him or her not to focus, the mental issue and probably, the issue of the student being academically inclined to hand based skill education rather than theoritical schol-based education.

Explanation:

city commissioner and director of the cia.

earthquake fault lines