What this deck covers
This deck focuses on Distinguishing Correlation And Causation, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for Statistics.
Study Distinguishing Correlation And Causation in Statistics with focused flashcards that help you recognize the idea, recall the key rule, and apply it in practice-style prompts.
0% Complete
Which feature is essential for a causal claim: random assignment or a large sample size?
Tap card or press Space to flip
Random assignment. Random assignment eliminates confounding, unlike sample size alone.
How well did you know it?
Card 1 / 39
Space to flip · ← / → to move · once flipped, → Got it · ← Still learning
This deck focuses on Distinguishing Correlation And Causation, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for Statistics.
Work through these flashcards in short sessions. Try to answer each prompt before flipping the card, then revisit any cards you miss until the explanation feels automatic.
Answer: Random assignment. Random assignment eliminates confounding, unlike sample size alone.
Answer: Random assignment. Randomization eliminates systematic differences between groups.
Answer: Observational study. Without random assignment, confounders may explain observed relationships.
Answer: A statistical association showing how two variables vary together. Measures how variables change together, not why they change.
Answer: As one variable increases, the other tends to increase. They move in the same direction together.
Answer: Spurious correlation. The correlation exists but isn't meaningful or causal.
Answer: Correlation only. Observational data can't establish if sleep causes higher scores.
Answer: An unmeasured variable may be causing the observed association. Hidden third variables can create apparent relationships.
Answer: Observational study. No manipulation of variables means it's observational.
Answer: Confounding by season/temperature. Both variables are influenced by hot weather, not each other.
Answer: Random assignment to treatments. Random assignment eliminates confounding variables.
Answer: "x is associated with y". Observational data supports association claims, not causal claims.
Answer: Correlation does not imply causation. Variables can be related without one causing the other.
Answer: The treatment likely caused an increase in the response. Randomization allows causal interpretation of group differences.
Answer: There may be a non-linear association despite near-zero r. r only detects linear patterns, not curves.
Answer: To provide a baseline for comparison against the treatment group. Shows what happens without the treatment.
Answer: No linear association is present. The correlation coefficient measures only linear relationships.
Answer: Correct: r=−0.6 shows association, not causation. Correlation coefficient describes association strength, not causal effect.
Answer: A change in one variable directly produces a change in another variable. Causation requires one variable to be the reason for changes in another.
Answer: Randomized experiment. Random assignment controls confounders, enabling causal conclusions.
Answer: An observed association alone is insufficient to conclude cause and effect. Other factors may explain the relationship between correlated variables.
Answer: As one variable increases, the other tends to decrease. They move in opposite directions.
Answer: Causation supported. Random assignment allows causal inference about tutoring's effect.
Answer: "Causes". Direct causal language indicates cause-effect claims.
Answer: The supposed effect actually causes the supposed cause. The direction of causation is backwards from what's assumed.
Answer: Randomize subjects to treatments. Randomization eliminates confounding; matching alone doesn't.
Answer: It is unclear which variable influences the other, if either does. With correlation alone, we can't determine if A causes B or B causes A.
Answer: Reverse causation is possible. Sleep loss might cause stress, not vice versa.
Answer: Yes; severity can cause both more firefighters and more damage. Fire severity could cause both more responders and more damage.
Answer: A relationship where changes in one variable directly produce changes in the other. One variable must be the reason for changes in the other.
Answer: Association between variables; not necessarily a cause-and-effect link. Correlation measures relationship strength, not whether one causes the other.
Answer: Spurious correlation. The association exists but lacks a genuine causal mechanism.
Answer: Random assignment. Randomly assigning treatments balances known and unknown confounders.
Answer: Randomized experiment. Random assignment of treatments defines an experiment.
Answer: A third variable related to both variables that can create a misleading association. It affects both variables, creating false associations.
Answer: Confounding (lurking) variable: temperature. Temperature affects both variables, creating spurious correlation.
Answer: Randomized experiment. Only experiments with random assignment can prove causation.
Answer: Strong association, but causation is not established. Observational studies can't prove causation regardless of r.
Answer: Strong correlation; causation cannot be concluded. High r shows strong association, but observational data can't prove causation.