Back a few decades ago, researchers looked at the consumption of milk, and were greatly alarmed when they found a correlation between milk consumption and cancer risk! The correlation was based on higher cancer rate in New England, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even Switzerland (think about what those places may have in common, I'll let you guys figure it out). Now if that wasn't bad enough, another correlational report showed that milk-drinking English Women (yes, from England) had roughly 18 times the risk of developing certain cancers when compared to Japanese women of that same time, who very seldom partake in drinking milk. Well, hot damn, it seems that drinking milk doesn't do a body good now does it... Unless you think getting CANCER does a body good? Well, DO YOU?The researchers concluded that drinking milk is likely to give you cancer (or autism if you ask PETA...), but the less milk that was consumed, the lower the chances were of developing cancer.

A.Sketch a scatterplot of the result described here correlation on a well-labeled graph. (Follow same instruction as number 1)

B. What might happen to this correlation if you added one person in the sample who drank almost NO milk, and who was extremely likely to develop cancer?

C. The milkstory contains some causal languagemuch like the first study with commuting and politics. Are such causal claims justified from this research? Apply the three causal criteria to analyze it.

D. Can you think of any Moderator variables for this correlational study? If there is a moderator variable, can you name a potential moderator variable and sketch itin a moderator table? (Follow the same instruction as number 1)