Top Law Schools

I'm reviewing my most frequently missed logical reasoning questions, and I'm having a lot of trouble with statements that ressemble this question. I don't think I can post the actual question due to copyright issues, but the basic structure of the question stem is as follows:

According to a study, there seems to be a correlation between A and B. However, we know that there are instances of B without A and A without B. So there is no casual connection between A and B.

I think the second part of the "however" statement usually throws me off. In this question I chose E but it was wrong. Can someone explain this?

Just to clarify, I'm not having issues with identify the flaw questions, but with questions with this stem structure.

Thank you in advance!

I chose (E) the first time I did this too.

The problem with (E) is that the argument is not really saying that correlation implies causation; rather, it is saying something along the lines of "no correlation implies no causation." Nitpicky difference that tripped me up too.

The correct answer is (A) because if some but not all types of damage lead to schizophrenia, then it is still possible that there is both correlation and causation even in light of the evidence.

Thanks! I think I get it now.