Smoking bans cut asthma and premature births by 10% Forum

[Psingh]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26770009

How do they know that there is a causal relationship here? From what the article says, it seems that the study found only a correlation between smoking bans being put in place and a reduction in premature births. How does one analyze this scenario? It's very similar to the high school drop outs LSAT question.

[manillabay]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26770009

How do they know that there is a causal relationship here? From what the article says, it seems that the study found only a correlation between smoking bans being put in place and a reduction in premature births. How does one analyze this scenario? It's very similar to the high school drop outs LSAT question.

Yeah, I don't think this study conclusively proves that smoking bans did in fact cause these reductions.
It says,
"Researchers found a 10% reduction in premature births and severe childhood asthma attacks within a year of smoke-free laws being introduced."

I would say that this argument fails to consider other possible reasons for which the reductions have occurred. It also assumes that there were no other reasons for which the reductions could have occurred (recent new medicine perhaps, I don't know). A year is a measly time period to conclude this anyway. If they were to compare this against various other years and to extend the study into the future, then, too, the case would be stronger. But as it stands, it's a weak causation.

[Clyde Frog]

And that's what the lsat will do to your thought process.

[patogordo]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26770009

How do they know that there is a causal relationship here? From what the article says, it seems that the study found only a correlation between smoking bans being put in place and a reduction in premature births. How does one analyze this scenario? It's very similar to the high school drop outs LSAT question.

Yeah, I don't think this study conclusively proves that smoking bans did in fact cause these reductions.
It says,
"Researchers found a 10% reduction in premature births and severe childhood asthma attacks within a year of smoke-free laws being introduced."

I would say that this argument fails to consider other possible reasons for which the reductions have occurred. It also assumes that there were no other reasons for which the reductions could have occurred (recent new medicine perhaps, I don't know). A year is a measly time period to conclude this anyway. If they were to compare this against various other years and to extend the study into the future, then, too, the case would be stronger. But as it stands, it's a weak causation.

yea it seems likely that in all 11 cases studied in various countries there just so happened to be some asthma wonderdrug released coincident with smoking bans. a tip of the fedora to you, sir.