There is a correlation between A and X. In which case, in almost all incidences of X’s, there are no A’s. There exists a void between X and A in terms of drawing the conclusion that X precedes A. It is an unmentioned elephant in the room. Like let’s say that X denotes a mass-murderer, and A denotes having a Facebook. Upon examination and careful reflection on the preceding events, it is understood that most mass murderers did not have a Facebook account. Thus, there is a correlation between being a mass murderer and not having a Facebook, but the sample size of five is too small and nor does in this case the inverse prove valid that not having a Facebook cause people to be mass murderers. There is a correlation since all the sample size did not have a Facebook, which goes to show that people who become mass-murderers do not have a Facebook and simply only that.
When someone notices the elephant in the room of a correlation, and publicly acknowledge it through the media, it immediately becomes a public topic of debate which people will reflect on and agree or disagree with the author’s or news anchor’s point. The point is that the newly acknowledged point has been placed into existence as the words of an author or commentator and is open for criticism. The irony is that if any of the debaters would have discovered the correlation, it would exist in their minds in a state of absolute truth, because to them it seems to be a novel discovery which makes sense in their mind. Now to be clear, this conjecture does make sense in theory, but when published through the media, the point gains a person who backs it as his own thoughts and therefore opens the idea up to discussion for critics.