The Correlations Table Below Indicates That: Correlations ** Correlation Is Significant at the 0

The correlations table below indicates that: Correlations
$\begin{array}{|l|l|r|r|}\hline & & {\text { Sales }} & \begin{array}{r}\text { Advertising } \\\text { expenditure }\end{array} \\\hline \begin{array}{l}\text { Productivity } \\\text { (average } \\\text { salesper } \\\text { month) }\end{array} & \text { Pearson correlation } &1 &0.354\left({ }^{* *}\right) \\\hline & \text { Sig. (two-tailed) } & & 0.103 \\\hline & N & 100 & 100 \\\hline \begin{array}{l}\text { Months } \\\text { employed }\end{array} & \text { Pearson correlation } & 0.843\left({ }^{* *}\right) & 1 \\\hline & \text { Sig. (two-tailed) } & 0.000 & \\\hline & N & 100 & 100 \\\hline\end{array}$
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) .

A) about 35 per cent of variance in productivity can be explained by the variance in months employed.
B) about 71 per cent of the variance in productivity can be explained by the variance in months employed.
C) about 13 per cent of the variance in productivity can be explained by the variance in months employed.
D) there is no association between productivity and months employed.