A common misconception in statistics is confusing correlation with causation. If two events are correlated, it merely means that they share the same behaviour over time, but it doesn't imply in any way that those event are related by a common cause, or even worse, that one implies the other.
You can find several (even humorous) counter examples online. For example, if you plot the number of reported pirates assault against the global temperature in the last years, you'll se that temperature is rising (unfortunately...) while pirates are almost disappearing.
One could observe this strong negative correlation and claim that hotter climate has solved the pirate issue. Of course this is a joke, but it explains why you shouldn't confuse correlation with causation.
<h3>Answers:</h3>
1% of 300 is <u> 3 </u>
So 64% of 300 is <u> 192 </u>
========================================
Further explanation:
To take 1% of 300, we just chop off the extra zeros. So that's how I got 3.
To go from 1% to 64%, that's a jump of "times 64". Meaning you multiply that '3' by 64 to get 64*3 = 192.
Notice that 192/300 = 0.64 = 64% to confirm the answer.
x=23
a²+b²=c²
25+144=169
the square root of 169 is 13
add 10 to get x
23
Answer: composite
Step-by-step explanation: :)
