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.
Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
If a psychologist is assigned to assist in scheming and
criticizing any innovation, project or program which is a community watch for
the police department to decrease crime rate in the given situation, the
psychologist's will be best labelled as a policy evaluator, where he/she will
be evaluating the pros and cons of the planned project or development.
Regarding the definition of abnormality, it is correct to state that (A) it is difficult to define "normal" and "abnormal". Decontextualisation of users' experiences may result in pathologisation of culturally "normative" phenomenon and poor health care experiences. There is a wider debate that concerns both the biomedical and social sciences regarding the unresolved question of "normality" or "abnormality" and related to culture and psychopathology.