Researchers have found that the more World Cup soccer a student watches the better they do on their exams. Students reported the amount of World Cup soccer they had watched in the two weeks leading up to their midterm exams. The more soccer watched, the better the student’s exam grades tended to be. Researchers are not yet sure why soccer viewing improves intelligence, but plan further research during the next World Cup qualifiers as well as research examining other sports. Which of the following BEST captures the most significant flaw in this research as it is written? What type of design is this? Using an exam score as a measure of intelligence is an example of?

The study is correlational, but still makes a causal claim the correlation just reveals the direction and size of such an association between variables; correlation does not imply causation.

For question 2:

This researcher establishes a link between two variables, namely football viewing, and scoring.
This correlational research looks into correlations between variables without helping researchers control or manipulates any of them.
It expresses the strength and/or direction of a link between two (or more) factors.
This correlation's direction could be either positive or negative.

For question 3:

Parsimony is demonstrated by using an exam score as a measure of intellect.
It is defined as extreme frugality or the practice of spending money with great prudence.
When you carefully consider every purchase and are wary about spending even tiny sums of money.

Therefore, the answer is "Option 1, correlational, and parsimony".

Learn more:

brainly.com/question/14743279