DA0-002 Data Analysis Practice Question
An analyst calculates a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.8 between advertising spend and customer churn rate. Which interpretation is correct?
⚠ Common exam trap
DA0-002 often tests the correlation-versus-causation distinction and the r-versus-r² confusion, so candidates who see a strong coefficient jump to a causal claim (B) or misapply the variance-explained percentage (C).
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Increasing advertising spend is associated with decreasing churn rate.
A Pearson correlation of -0.8 indicates a strong negative linear relationship, meaning that as advertising spend increases, customer churn rate tends to decrease. The correct interpretation is directional association, not causation — the coefficient describes the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the two variables.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
There is a weak positive relationship.
Why it's wrong here
A coefficient of -0.8 denotes a strong negative relationship: as advertising spend rises, churn tends to fall. The weak-positive reading is tempting because the magnitude is high and the sign is easy to overlook, but 0.8 is strong and the minus sign fixes the direction.
- ✗
Advertising spend causes churn to decrease.
Why it's wrong here
Correlation measures association, not causation; a coefficient of -0.8 cannot establish that spend drives churn down. It tempts because strong negative correlation often accompanies a genuine causal relationship, so causal inference would be the correct conclusion only when supported by a controlled experiment or similar design.
- ✗
64% of the variance in churn is explained by spend.
Why it's wrong here
Squaring -0.8 gives 0.64, so 64% of the variance is shared, but Pearson's r measures linear association, not causation or directional explanation. The option tempts because the arithmetic is right; it is the correct interpretation only when describing shared variance, not when the stem asks what the coefficient means.
- ✓
Increasing advertising spend is associated with decreasing churn rate.
Why this is correct
A coefficient of -0.8 indicates a strong negative linear association: as advertising spend rises, churn rate tends to fall. This satisfies the stem's requirement to interpret the sign and magnitude correctly, since the negative sign denotes an inverse relationship rather than causation or a weak correlation.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every DA0-002 question from scratch — 1,004 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official CompTIA exam blueprint
This DA0-002 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the DA0-002 exam.