Conditional vs. Cause & Effect

[lc1357]

Hello,

As I've been studying LR, I've run into difficulties differentiating between conditional and cause & effect statements. I'm sometimes not sure when I can consider a statement conditional or not. I've found this especially difficult when I see cause & effect statements.

For example, PT68 Section3 #4 says "Over the last few decades, public outcries against pollution have brought about stricter regulations of emissions." This is not considered a conditional statement and instead is considered a casual statement (viewtopic.php?t=14130).

However, PT68 Section3 #21 says "Professor Riley characterized the university president's speech as inflammatory and argued that it was therefore inappropriate." This is considered a conditional statement (viewtopic.php?t=6656).

I can see why #4 can't be represented by a conditional diagram, but I'm having trouble understanding why #21 can. What's the difference between the two? Doesn't "therefore" indicate cause & effect? From my understanding, conditional statements have a sufficient condition that must guarantee a necessary condition, and #21 doesn't seem to fit that definition. Some clarity on this topic would really be appreciated!

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lc,

Distinguishing conditional reasoning from causal reasoning can be tricky at times.

For causal reasoning, the "cause" actually makes the "effect" happen. By definition, the cause must occur before the effect in time. If it didn't, then it can't be the cause.

In question 4 that you mentioned, the public outcries against pollution "brought about" stricter regulations. First there were the public outcries and then came the stricter regulations as a direct result of those outcries. Definitely causal.

For conditional reasoning, we don't say that the sufficient "causes" the necessary. Instead we say that the sufficient just indicates that the necessary condition occurs. Also, there is no fixed time relationship between the sufficient and necessary. In other words, the sufficient can happen before the necessary, after the necessary, or at the same time.

In question 21, Professor Riley characterizes the speech as inflammatory and therefore inappropriate. This is not causal. It's not that the quality of being inflammatory is the cause and the quality of being inappropriate is the effect. It's also not the case that the speech is inflammatory first and then later inappropriate. The two characteristics happen at the same time. Here being inflammatory just indicates that it is also inappropriate, but of course it's possible for the speech to inappropriate in other ways (such as being lewd, crude, etc.), which is the main flaw in the argument.

For example, if I say "John has a Snickers and therefore has a candy bar," that is not a causal statement. It's not that the Snickers causes John to have a candy bar. It's not like first he has a Snickers and then later he has a candy bar. Rather having the Snickers indicates that he has a candy bar at the exact same time.

Of course, there are situations where conditional and causal reasoning can overlap, so be on the lookout for that situation.

[Morgan2cats]

Hi lc,

Distinguishing conditional reasoning from causal reasoning can be tricky at times.

For causal reasoning, the "cause" actually makes the "effect" happen. By definition, the cause must occur before the effect in time. If it didn't, then it can't be the cause.

In question 4 that you mentioned, the public outcries against pollution "brought about" stricter regulations. First there were the public outcries and then came the stricter regulations as a direct result of those outcries. Definitely causal.

For conditional reasoning, we don't say that the sufficient "causes" the necessary. Instead we say that the sufficient just indicates that the necessary condition occurs. Also, there is no fixed time relationship between the sufficient and necessary. In other words, the sufficient can happen before the necessary, after the necessary, or at the same time.

In question 21, Professor Riley characterizes the speech as inflammatory and therefore inappropriate. This is not causal. It's not that the quality of being inflammatory is the cause and the quality of being inappropriate is the effect. It's also not the case that the speech is inflammatory first and then later inappropriate. The two characteristics happen at the same time. Here being inflammatory just indicates that it is also inappropriate, but of course it's possible for the speech to inappropriate in other ways (such as being lewd, crude, etc.), which is the main flaw in the argument.

For example, if I say "John has a Snickers and therefore has a candy bar," that is not a causal statement. It's not that the Snickers causes John to have a candy bar. It's not like first he has a Snickers and then later he has a candy bar. Rather having the Snickers indicates that he has a candy bar at the exact same time.

Of course, there are situations where conditional and causal reasoning can overlap, so be on the lookout for that situation.

Hi Jeff, thanks for your explanation. Could you please give me two examples of the sufficient condition happens before the necessary, and after the necessary? Thanks!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Morgan!

Here's an example of a sufficient condition happening AFTER the necessary condition:

If I am full, then I have eaten a good meal.

I only become full after I have eaten a good meal.

Full --> Ate a Good Meal



Here's an example of a sufficient condition happening BEFORE the necessary condition:

If it rains, then the ground will be wet.

The rain must occur before the ground becomes wet.

Rain --> Wet Ground

[Morgan2cats]

Hi Morgan!

Here's an example of a sufficient condition happening AFTER the necessary condition:

If I am full, then I have eaten a good meal.

I only become full after I have eaten a good meal.

Full --> Ate a Good Meal



Here's an example of a sufficient condition happening BEFORE the necessary condition:

If it rains, then the ground will be wet.

The rain must occur before the ground becomes wet.

Rain --> Wet Ground

Hi Amber, thanks a lot for the examples!

Is it possible that causal relationship and conditional logic overlap? Maybe sometimes when the sufficient condition is before the necessary condition?

Sorry for having so many questions, thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Morgan,

Yes, it is possible that causal and conditional reasoning overlap, and this does sometimes occur on the LSAT.

To see, let's look at Amber's previous example of:

If it rains, then the ground will be wet.

This statement is expressed conditionally, but it also can be viewed causally.

Here, the rain is the cause and the wet ground is the effect.