Does this evidence support the causal claim? Evidence: randomly assigned students to \(\text{two}\) study methods and compared final scores. Claim: method A causes higher scores than method B

Evaluate causal evidence by auditing the design before looking at which group scored higher. Assignment of the explanatory condition before the outcome, especially at random, reduces self-selection and confounding; an outcome difference gains causal meaning from that comparability, within the experiment’s conditions, not from size or direction alone.