They controlled for every other cause of the results that had been claimed. Nobody has any idea how they could have gotten those results, except from the addition of the slaughterhouse.
Random chance? No, reports and arrests of violent crime were significantly influenced by slaughterhouse employment when controlling for other potential causes, with a P value less than one in a hundred. The probability that random chance produced results as strong as this is less than one in a hundred. Random chance didn’t cause these results. People are predictable, and this was no fluke.
this isn’t proof of causation. it’s pure post hoc ergo propter hoc
They controlled for every other cause of the results that had been claimed. Nobody has any idea how they could have gotten those results, except from the addition of the slaughterhouse.
Do you want to submit an alternative hypothesis?
sure: people are different and unpredictable.
Random chance? No, reports and arrests of violent crime were significantly influenced by slaughterhouse employment when controlling for other potential causes, with a P value less than one in a hundred. The probability that random chance produced results as strong as this is less than one in a hundred. Random chance didn’t cause these results. People are predictable, and this was no fluke.