In my opinion, this cereal box is doing a pretty good job of reporting on science here. For one, the "facts'' they state are attributed to a source. (However, they don't say what NHANES is--you should Google that acronym to make sure it's not the national association of breakfast cereal sellers!)
Another thing the cereal box does well is that the second Fuel Up Fact, about having a healthy weight, is not turned into a causal claim. It's just an association claim. Good job, cereal box!
Even though it's stated as an association claim, it seems possible that people will infer a causal claim from this association.It's even possible that the cereal company hopes that people will make this causal inference, and buy more breakfast cereal!
a) What is one possible causal claim people might (erroneously) infer from the association between skipping breakfast and having healthy weight?
b) Given that there is a correlation between skipping breakfast and having a healthy weight, what are three possible causal paths that could be responsible for this association? (Hint: Think about temporal precedence and internal validity, as outlined in Figure 7.16)