LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible supplement site - Advanced Causal Reasoning

[jupiterlaw]

Hi,

1. On the Chapter Eight Advanced Causal Reasoning PDF it is said that more advanced arguments often remove the central assumption of causality. I am wondering what exactly the assumption they're referring to is.

2. On the same PDF, under the discussion of increases and decreases in likelihood and degree, after the increases degree example it is said that the removal of the cause doesn't eliminate the effect, it just removed the increase or decrease in the effect. I am confused on what this means, below is the example given:

"Diet is extremely important to health and junk food has a negative impact on your health. Thus, the more junk food you eat, the worse your overall health will be as a result."

[Dave Killoran]

That would be:

1. That there is only one cause for the effect, and vice versa. More advanced problems allow for multiple causes, each contributing in varying degrees. Similarly, they allows for multiple effects.

2. It means that removing the "extra" junk food you eat doesn't cancel/remove the fact junk food by itself is a problem. In other words, just because the accelerating/decelerating portion disappears, the basic causal relationship doesn't disappear. So, if someone came in and said, "Well, if that's the case, just don't each too much junk food and your health will be fine," that wouldn't be valid because it is still true that "junk food has a negative impact on your health."

Thanks!

[jupiterlaw]

That would be:

1. That there is only one cause for the effect, and vice versa. More advanced problems allow for multiple causes, each contributing in varying degrees. Similarly, they allows for multiple effects.

2. It means that removing the "extra" junk food you eat doesn't cancel/remove the fact junk food by itself is a problem. In other words, just because the accelerating/decelerating portion disappears, the basic causal relationship doesn't disappear. So, if someone came in and said, "Well, if that's the case, just don't each too much junk food and your health will be fine," that wouldn't be valid because it is still true that "junk food has a negative impact on your health."

Thanks!

Thanks! That makes a lot more sense.

Just to clarify, essentially for my second question regardless of increasing or decreasing the degree, a causal relationship is still present. So, for this example, regardless of the amount consumed, junk food still has some degree of negative impact on your health.