Does the claim hold water?

For each of the assigned readings for the week (not including the Critical Thinking… text)
identify one causal claim made by the author(s) and evaluate the validity or merits of that
claim. Are you able to identify alternative explanations for the phenomenon in question?

For the “Stop Confusing Correlation with Causation” one of the casual claims which are
represented is that taking shower reduces cardiovascular diseases. In my point of view, this
claim is casual and it relies on no scientific approach or evidence. I personally can't rely on this
information unless the author shows valid scientific proof of what he/she said. And also since
this is a health-related fact and it is sensitive, we need a lot of information to be able to rely on
it as a scientific fact.

The second reading claims: “The companies that are most effective at managing sustainability
will be more attractive to investors”
Also, this reading does not have the required merit and validation to be considered valid in my
point of view, although it may be right in today's business environment it is not necessarily
true. This reading is tied to our old and unfinished discussion which was business is business
and leaves businesses alone to make their profit. This claim that companies with more care for
sustainability are more successful in attracting investors is not valid in my opinion. There are
plenty of older investors who don’t care about sustainability and just looking for a company
that is more profitable. This is the correlation between characteristics. But maybe here there is
we have two things which are strongly correlated but we can’t find any logical or rational
linkage among them. A good company which is profitable and successful also does care about
sustainability. So in this scenario, our claim is valid but we couldn’t find any rational logic or
reason between them. And also as post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy states, the attractiveness
of the company to the investors does not necessarily the effect of the sustainable works. Since
they are in a row, does not guarantee that the first one caused the second one. Maybe they are
completely independent of each other.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard--Measures That Drive
Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
The reading claim is that financial success is no longer the valid preference for measuring the
company’s success. We need to consider more aspects rather than financial per se. the reading
suggests that CEOs must use scorecards-explained in the reading- to fairly and adequately
measure the success of the company which consists of questions about how customers
perceived us and how stakeholders perceived us and look at us and so on.
The validity of this claim is likely to be logical since there are a lot of reasons and proves and
scientific facts and real examples of this claim and it has ample merit to be considered as a valid
and credible claim.
On the other hand, in my perspective, the alternative for this claim is to consider the financial
status of the company as enough preference for the success of the company. Since one of the
requirements and prerequisites of being financially successful is to be good at every single
aspect of your business, this is the only way that you can earn money and other aspects are
subdomains of financial success. So if the domain-which is a financial success- is doing well,
other aspects do the same. So it is unnecessary and time-wasting to measure and consider
other aspects of the company since financial success is more than enough to find what we
want.