A study claims that the policy reduced crime because more police were deployed coinciding with the timing. The flaw is not accounting for other factors such as baseline crime trends; Which term best identifies this flaw?

• A. Confounding variable
• B. Faulty causal reasoning
• C. Slippery slope
• D. Ad hominem

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is recognizing when you’re treating a correlation as if it were a proven cause. Saying crime fell because more police were deployed at that time assumes a causal link without ruling out other explanations, like existing downward crime trends. This is faulty causal reasoning: drawing a cause-and-effect conclusion from timing and association alone, without controlling for other factors that could drive the outcome. The term captures the misstep of inferring causation from imperfect evidence. While a confounding variable could be the real driver behind the observed change, the label in this context focuses on the logical mistake of attributing causation, not just naming the hidden factor. The other options don’t fit the situation: a slippery slope describes a chain of future consequences, and an ad hominem targets a person rather than assessing the argument.