Agovernment passes a law increasing taxes on banks. two days later, there are several bank robberies. a politician who opposed the taxes claims that the new law is causing bank robberies. why is the politician's argument not very convincing? a. it establishes a historical narrative. b. it confuses correlation with causation. c. it claims that the law has no good cause. d. it fails to prove correlation.

The answer would be:

B. It confuses correlation with causation.

Correlation is when something is related but not caused by somthing else, causation states that something is caused by the movement of something else, if you pass the law and then the robberies happend there is some correlation to some grade, but not causation, because you can´t prove that the law caused the robberies.

The answer is B

Explanation: :)

it was bribing i think i might be wrong though