Bill is doing a research paper on violence and cartoons for his psychology class. During his research, he finds a remarkable correlation between the amount of violent cartoons a child watches and the aggressiveness of the child. Being a fairly careful researcher, Bill checks to see if he is overlooking a third factor, such as aggressive parents, that might account for the childrens' aggression and their time spent watching violent cartoons. Working right up to the deadline, Bill concludes that the cause of the childrens' aggressive behavior is the violent cartoons they watched. After all, he reasons, the two are in regular conjunction, so the cartoons must be the cause of the aggressiveness. Bill gets an "A" on his paper, but the professor asks him why he didn't consider the study conducted involving children who had never watched cartoons. In these studies, the professor pointed out, the aggressive children watched a lot more violent cartoons than the non-aggressive children did. In fact, the professor points out, even when exposed to the same number of hours of violent cartoon viewing as the aggressive children, the non-aggressive children did not become more aggressive.Post HocCompositionConfusing Cause and EffectIgnoring a Common CausePost Hoc: This is a wrong answer. While Bill is engaged in causal reasoning, he is not concluding that the cartoons are the cause of the childrens' aggression simply because one occurred before the other.Composition: This is a wrong answer. Bill is not drawing a conclusion about the whole based on the characteristics of the parts.Confusing Cause and Effect: This is the right answer. Since Bill is not committing a Post Hoc fallacy and he has checked for a common cause, this is the most plausible option. Further, Bill has drawn a conclusion about what causes what without adequately investigating the actually direction of the causal chain. Finally, the information at the end of the question makes it clear that Bill got the direction of the causal chain wrong.Ignoring a Common Cause: This is a wrong answer. As noted in the body of the question, Bill did take care to check for the possibility of a third factor that might be the cause of both phenomena.Bill has checked for the possibility of there being a third factor that might be the actual cause of both phenomena.3