English teachers either have or do not have a doctorate.
English teachers either are or are not good at teaching.
So it is possible to visualize a contingency table like the following.
Have a doctorate
Not have a doctorate
Good at teaching
Not good at teaching
Which begs the quetion: Is a have-a-doctorate more likely to be good at teaching than a not-have-a-doctorate, other things being equal? The answer is that this is an invalid question to ask. Why? Because other things can never be equal. Fact is that a good teacher, satisfied with their teaching situation, is more likely to NOT opt to venture into something that is so time consuming as a doctoral research. My gut feeling is that those who get their doctorates and those who are good at teaching are drawn from two different populations that overlap very little.
3) The ability to carry out the simplest conversation requires profound knowledge that the speakers are unaware of. This is as true of speakers of Japanese as of English speakers, of Eskimos as of Navajos.
4) IQ represents the degree to which, and the rate at which, people are able to learn, and retain in long-term memory, the knowledge and skills that can be learned from the environment.
5) It is a popular tourist spot, and attracts thousands of visitors every year, who come to the Loch to view its magnificent natural beauty, its incredible wildlife and, of course, its famous monster.
6) Subjects were more than twice as likely to yawn while observing yawns (55 percent) as to yawn while viewing a comparable series of smiles (21 percent).