Support them without the use of money or with comfort
Answer:
The conclusion is false, because it is assuming that correlation = causation.
Explanation:
An important principle in statistical analysis is the principle that when correlation exist between two variables or more, it does not mean that one of the variables are causing the other to appear in a certain manner.
Remember that correlation means that you are investigating whether a relationships exists between two variables; in this example, as we can see, it is between the biodiversity in an ecosystem and the population of an insect.
The graph can be said to illustrate the result of the research; that as the biodiversity of the ecosystem goes down, the insect's population goes up. This is a form of negative correlation.
However - we do not know what is the direction of the relationship; the student concludes that as some insects die within the ecosystem, the researched insect's population goes up; assuming that the predator species died off and thus the researched insect's population increases.
Yet, it is also possible for the relationship to go towards the other direction; the researched insect population increases - perhaps by the introduction of a new food source that causes the species' population to increase - and thus, this damages the biodiversity of the ecosystem, making the population go down since it is possible that the researched insect is instead the species which is on top of the food chain at that ecosystem.
To investigate the direction of a relationship, further research need to be done and more sophisticated statistical methods need to be used.
I believe the correct answer is c I'm not sure you might want to double check
<h2>
To appeal to the dissatisfied, multi-ethnic population of the Soviet Union.</h2>
A comment from the <em>History Channel</em> explains the situation in the USSR when Gorbachev was in power. "In 1985, even many of the most conservative hardliners realized that much needed to change. The Soviet economy was faltering and dissidents and internal and external critics were calling for an end to political repression and government secrecy." As far as the aim of Gorbachev's reforms, "The plan was for the Soviet Union to become more transparent, and in turn for the leadership of the nation and the Communist Party to be improved," according to <em>YourDictionary</em>.
In March 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed policies of <em>perestroika </em>(restructuring) and <em>glasnost</em> (openness) in the Soviet Union. These seemed like policies that leaned in the direction of Western ways of economics and politics. <em>Perestroika </em>meant allowing some measure of private enterprise in the Soviet Union. <em>Glasnost </em>meant allowing a bit of freedom in regard to speech and publication. Gorbachev was not trying to get rid of the Soviet communist system. He actually was trying to prop it up and preserve it, because it was starting to have many problems sustaining itself, and there was too much dissatisfaction and dissent occurring among the country's people. But in the end, opening things up a bit with <em>perestroika </em>and <em>glasnost</em> policies pushed the USSR further in the direction of shedding the communist model under which it had lived for so long, and would begin to spell the end of the USSR.
