Top Law Schools

Folks, I've read both the bibles and manhattan prep, and I'm wondering if this is still true

If stimulus says A causes B, is the author believing that in the universe, only A can cause B?

Also, can someone check me:

to Weaken a causation:

1. Show Alternative Cause (Something else caused B and not A)
2. Show Effect was there but no Cause
3. Show Cause was there but no Effect
4. Show Reversal (B cause A)
5. Show statistical problem

To Strengthen

1. Show if Cause was there, Effect would follow (Would this qualify as strengthening the correlation?)
2. Show if Effect was there, Cause is also present

Here is where I have a problem, to strengthen a causation, is it allowed to say

1. If effect is NOT there, then cause should also not be there?
2. If Cause is NOT there, then effect should also not be there?

And also for weaken, is it allowed to say

1. if Cause is NOT there, but show Effect is there to weaken
2. if Effect is NOT there, but show Cause happened

Are the above assuming that only A can cause B? since for example, if Effect is there and Cause is not, some other thing can cause the Effect

longlivetheking wrote: Here is where I have a problem, to strengthen a causation, is it allowed to say

1. If effect is NOT there, then cause should also not be there?
2. If Cause is NOT there, then effect should also not be there?

And also for weaken, is it allowed to say

1. if Cause is NOT there, but show Effect is there to weaken
2. if Effect is NOT there, but show Cause happened

Are the above assuming that only A can cause B? since for example, if Effect is there and Cause is not, some other thing can cause the Effect

You are correct. You would need to assume that only A can cause B, and that B cannot be present without a cause. This is not a good assumption to generally have, so in the above quoted, to strengthen an argument, #2 would be incorrect, and in to weaken an argument, #1 would be incorrect.