got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.

If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?

To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.

WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?

got it right the first time!

... but it took me 9 minutes

"c" in this video, in statistics, is called the confounding variable: A variable that influences both a and b independent of each other.

correlation: as ice cream sales increase so do rates of drowning.

Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.

Do ice cream sales cause more people to drown? No!

What could possible explain this correlated relationship? Well, maybe temperature. As it gets hotter outside, ice cream sales go up, AND - simultaneously - more people go swimming (thus more drowning rates).

All squares are a type of rectangle but not all rectangles are sqaures!

I wish logical reasoning questions would test me on my logical reasoning... not on my ability to decipher stupidly worded answers.

Would have got this correct if I knew what A meant. I had ruled out every other answer.