## A couple of random questions I think about...

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

### A couple of random questions I think about...

When I read a paragraph on the LSAT that incorporates a cause and effect relationship...I need clarification about some things.

I am having trouble differentiating between cause and effect relationships and conditional statements. I just feel like if a causes b, then you could say if a then b.

And in the same way conditional statements can also be viewed as cause and effect. If a is sufficient for b...could it not be said that a causes b to exist by necessity?

Thanks in advance for clearing some things up for me.

Jack Smirks

Posts: 1330
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Ok there are three things that will help you tell the difference between conditional reasoning and causal reasoning.

First thing is the temporal relationship in cause and effect relationships.... the cause MUST happen before the effect. The same is not true for necessary/sufficient statements. The sufficient condition can happen before or after the necessary condition, or even at the same time.

Second thing is the connection between the two events. In cause and effect statements the events are related in a very direct way.

I lit the fuse to the TNT which caused the house to explode.

In other words, the cause actually makes the effect happen.

Conditional statements are often related to each other but they don't have to be.

If I sing a song, then you will go to church.

The sufficient condition is not making the necessary condition happen, it's just indicating that that it must occur.

The third thing to remember is that the language used to introduce the statements are different. Causal indicators are much more active words: caused by, responsible for, reason for, leads to,etc. Conditional reasoning is introduced with if/then statements or uses words like when, only, every, must, all, unless, etc.

Pay attention to the language used to introduce the relationship and if the usual indicator words don't make it clear think about the the chronology of the two events and whether or not one is actually making the other happen.

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Thank you for that...I had similar thoughts about temporal issues with cause and effect which I now fully realize must occur in that manner.

I understand the word unless functions as if not. A will happen unless b occurs. If not b then a happens. And by the contrapositive we can also say that if not a then b. So the word unless implies the only option to change a given condition?

If one were to say I am going to school unless I am sick, then the option of validly saying that winning the multimillion dollar lottery is off of the table as an alternative due to that given conditional statement. Is my understanding correct?

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Bump on this

spece212

Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:39 am

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

This is purely an examination oriented tip. So I would not get into the debate of whether understanding conceptually is important or not.

Tip#1 : Cram the unless formula in the LR bible. helps you save a whole lot of time on LSAT conditional reasoning. So if you see

A unless B

straight away write (w/o getting into the correctness part)

~A -> B

Tip#2 : I found that conditional reasoning is usually found in certain types of questions where the correct answer is beyond doubt
- Inference questions
- Justify questions

Causal reasoning is typically found in
- strengthen
- weaken
etc.

Hope this helps.

## Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!

Kurst

Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

secretad wrote:the word unless implies the only option to change a given condition?

If one were to say I am going to school unless I am sick, then the option of validly saying that winning the multimillion dollar lottery is off of the table as an alternative due to that given conditional statement. Is my understanding correct?

Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

A causes B. Let's say that this statement is given in the reading comprehension section. Does this still allow for other things to cause B? My understanding is that it would. Just because A causes B does not preclude the possibility of C, D, or E causing B as well. Am I correct in thinking that the passage must state that B is solely caused by A in order to justify not wondering about alternative causes?

Kurst

Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

From the chapter on cause and effect reasoning in the LRB (page 17 in Powerscore's official excerpt):

David M. Killoran wrote:The Central Assumption of Causal Conclusions

Understanding the assumption that is at the heart of a causal conclusion is essential to knowing why certain answers will be correct or incorrect. Most students assume that the LSAT makes basic assumptions that are similar to the real world; this is untrue and is a dangerous mistake to make.

When we discuss causality in the real world, there is an inherent understanding that a given cause is just one possible cause of the effect, and that there are other causes that could also produce the same effect. This is reasonable because we have the ability to observe a variety of cause and effect scenarios, and experience shows us that different actions can have the same result. The makers of the LSAT do not think this way. When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect. This assumption is incredibly extreme and far-reaching, and often leads to surprising answer choices that would appear incorrect unless you understand this assumption. Consider the following example:

Premise: Average temperatures are higher at the equator than in any other area.
Premise: Individuals living at or near the equator tend to have lower per-capita incomes than individuals living elsewhere.
Conclusion: Therefore, higher average temperatures cause lower per-capita incomes.

This argument is a classic flawed causal argument wherein two premises with a basic connection (living at the equator) are used as the basis of a conclusion that states that the connection is such that one of the elements actually makes the other occur. The conclusion is flawed because it is not necessary that one of the elements caused the other to occur: the two could simply be correlated in some way or the connection could be random.

In the real world, we would tend to look at an argument like the one above and think that while the conclusion is possible, there are also other things that could cause the lower per-capita income of individuals residing at or near the equator, such as a lack of natural resources. This is not how speakers on the LSAT view the relationship. When an LSAT speaker makes an argument like the one above, he or she believes that the only cause is the one stated in the conclusion and that there are no other causes that can create that particular effect. Why is this the case? Because for an LSAT speaker to come to that conclusion, he or she must have weighed and considered every possible alternative and then rejected each one. Otherwise, why would the speaker draw the given conclusion? In the final analysis, to say that higher average temperatures cause lower per-capita incomes the speaker must also believe that nothing else could be the cause of lower per-capita incomes.

Thus, in every argument with a causal conclusion that appears on the LSAT, the speaker believes that the stated cause is in fact the only cause and all other theoretically possible causes are not, in fact, actual causes.

suspicious android

Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Understanding the assumption that is at the heart of a causal conclusion is essential to knowing why certain answers will be correct or incorrect. Most students assume that the LSAT makes basic assumptions that are similar to the real world; this is untrue and is a dangerous mistake to make.

When we discuss causality in the real world, there is an inherent understanding that a given cause is just one possible cause of the effect, and that there are other causes that could also produce the same effect. This is reasonable because we have the ability to observe a variety of cause and effect scenarios, and experience shows us that different actions can have the same result. The makers of the LSAT do not think this way. When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect. This assumption is incredibly extreme and far-reaching, and often leads to surprising answer choices that would appear incorrect unless you understand this assumption.

Just for fun I'd like to say that I think that on this topic the LRB off the mark, and this argument is full of unsubstantiated, hand-wavy bullshit.

## Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?

EarlCat

Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Very few LSAT questions hinge on the difference between a causal relationship and a conditional relationship. The ones in which a causal relationship matters are pretty much confined to cause/correlation flaws, which are generally easy to spot ("Every time I carry my umbrella it rains. Therefore carrying my umbrella causes it to rain."). So I pretty much treat causal statements and conditional statements as if they were the same thing. Thinking this way would make a logic professor's head asplode, but it's never been a problem on the LSAT.

EarlCat

Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

A causes B. Let's say that this statement is given in the reading comprehension section. Does this still allow for other things to cause B? My understanding is that it would. Just because A causes B does not preclude the possibility of C, D, or E causing B as well. Am I correct in thinking that the passage must state that B is solely caused by A in order to justify not wondering about alternative causes?

Absent other information, you couldn't rule out that other things might cause B. However, if you were told only A causes B, then you would have to rule out C, D, or E as causes.

Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:57 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Kurst wrote:
secretad wrote:the word unless implies the only option to change a given condition?

If one were to say I am going to school unless I am sick, then the option of validly saying that winning the multimillion dollar lottery is off of the table as an alternative due to that given conditional statement. Is my understanding correct?

FLAW!! This presupposes there is no other conditional statement that states winning the multimillion dollar lottery does make you sick.

EarlCat

Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

Kurst wrote:
secretad wrote:the word unless implies the only option to change a given condition?
If one were to say I am going to school unless I am sick, then the option of validly saying that winning the multimillion dollar lottery is off of the table as an alternative due to that given conditional statement. Is my understanding correct?

FLAW!! This presupposes there is no other conditional statement that states winning the multimillion dollar lottery does make you sick.

Nice catch, although it would only have to have the possibility of making you sick.

Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:57 pm

### Re: A couple of random questions I think about...

EarlCat wrote:
Kurst wrote:
secretad wrote:the word unless implies the only option to change a given condition?
If one were to say I am going to school unless I am sick, then the option of validly saying that winning the multimillion dollar lottery is off of the table as an alternative due to that given conditional statement. Is my understanding correct?

FLAW!! This presupposes there is no other conditional statement that states winning the multimillion dollar lottery does make you sick.

Nice catch, although it would only have to have the possibility of making you sick.

Likewise, nice catch on my error. EarlCat is correct.

Register now!

It's still FREE!