A columnist writes that the acquisition of a new team mascot for the local baseball team is bad luck. He believes this because ever since the mascot arrived the team has lost every game. What is wrong with this statement?
Columnists are not supposed to cover stories about sports-related news in their work.
A credible columnist is not allowed to express his or her opinion openly in the news.
This is an example of plagiarism. The columnist has made use of someone else's ideas.
It suggests that one thing caused another to happen when there is no evidence for this.
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
if a new mascot joined the team, considering mascots don't play ....is it really true for him to say thats the reason they lost every game?