## Cause and effect

I have such a question in my physics book:

There are 2 statements below. Choose a if the second statement is an explanation of the first statement; otherwise, choose b :

1. Ammeter has a very small resistance.

2. The current in the circuit can be said negligibly affected when the ammeter is connected in series with it correctly.

I thought the answer should be b , as I thought that statement 1 should be the explanation of statement 2, not vice versa. But the answer said is a . Why?
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> King Richard III found in 'untidy lozenge-shaped grave'>> Google Drive sports new view and scan enhancements>> Researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study
 I would agree with you. Personally that's a very confusing and badly written question. ~Lyuokdea
 Recognitions: Gold Member Allow me to lend my support, gents. It might be a matter of semantics, though; Statement #1 is definitely the basis for Statement #2, but might not necessarily be an explanation for it. Regardless, it's a very poorly presented problem. Given the same choice that you were, I would have chosen similarly.

## Cause and effect

In the future I suggest interpreting it as:

Choose a if the second statement explains why the first statement is true; otherwise, choose b :
 2 is true *because* 1 is true. The ammeter has low resistance *because* it was made that way (Aristotle's Effective Cause), not because it has a negligible effect on the current.
 yeah. the reason that there is a negligible effect is that there is a small resistance. besides, the wording in 2 is that "it can be said". so now the question is, why can this be said?