Doubly Causal question

[voodoochild]

Experts,
I was reviewing Powerscore CR chapter on Causality. Could there be a situation where the cause and effect could be bi-directional? (i.e. A cause could cause an effect, and an effect, in turn, could cause a cause?

Something like : cause effect?

#1-
I couldn't think of a real-world event where such a thing could be true. Any help?

#2-
Also, what words could be used to express such a relationship?

Thanks

[Jon Denning]

Let me start by stressing that it's language, and it's the LSAT. So lots and lots of subtlety and nuance and potential ways that ideas can be presented/configured and I'd be foolish to pronounce that "they never do XYZ" when it comes to things like this because a tremendous amount is possible.

Having said that, let's talk about what has traditionally been the case. Certainly the test makers will present situations where the cause and effect could be reversed, which is typically a Flaw you're asked to identify or weaken. A classic example that comes immediately to mind is a stimulus where it is observed that workers who make more money than their peers are statistically more likely to also own a laptop computer, and the conclusion is then given that laptop ownership is what caused the higher salaries. Of course, it could very easily be the case that the additional income is what allowed them to purchase the laptops (reversed CE), and that is the flaw in the argument. [I sometimes take it one step further and say something like "they're probably also more likely to own a fancy car...would we say that buying a Ferrari leads to a bigger paycheck, or does the reversal of those ideas seem more likely?"]

So you could definitely find potential reversals on the LSAT, where the "bi-directional" nature of cause and effect is actually a mistake. But it seems as though maybe you're asking "would the test makers ever construct a relationship where the cause/effect reversal was intentional (or valid) and understanding that it goes both ways is crucial to understanding the argument?" I can't say that I've ever seen that, nor would I expect it since causality as given by LSAT authors is necessarily uni-directional and the possibility of it reversing is a flaw, not an intentional feature.

Final thought: the first thing that popped into my head when you asked for a real world example was something along the lines of a relationship between an injury and exercise, where having an injury likely causes less exercise, and exercising less makes you more injury-prone. So it could be said that both are causes of, and effects of, the other to a certain extent. However even in that if I'm going to make a causal argument about the relationship I have to pick one to have happened first, like "he got hurt because he was out of shape," or "he's gotten pretty out of shape since his injury." I could state that the two are cyclical, but a traditional causal argument is inherently one where the author presumes uni-directionality.

Hope that helps.

[voodoochild]

Thanks Jon. It's crystal clear now. Thank you so much.