The correct answer is B) it confuses correlation with causation.
A government passes a law increasing taxes on banks. Two days later there are several bank robberies. A political who opposed the taxes claim that the new law is causing bank robberies. What is wrong with the politician's argument is that it confuses correlation with causation.
Indeed, the fact that increased taxes had passed has nothing to do with the robbery of banks. The politician is opportunistic that only wants to create controversy in the media. Robbery of banks is a matter of security in the buildings, not a fiscal problem or consequence.
The other options of the question are A) it establishes a historical narrative. C) it claims that the law has no good cause. D) it fails to prove correlation.
