Correlation/Causation Flaw

[AlyssaY]

One of the common flaws on the test is when the author erroneously presumes that correlation implies causation, but is it a logical flaw to presume the opposite, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation? I am guessing that it is also a flaw but I'm having trouble thinking of a real-life example of causation without correlation since it seems as though elements would need to relate at least somewhat in order to have a causal relationship. I tried searching Google for an answer but got into a scary dark hole of statistics (eek math) and could not find a definitive answer as it relates to the level of logic on the LSAT.

If it is a flaw, and one that could show up on the test, will the the answer choice be phrased similarly as when the elements are in the positive, such as "the author presumes, without justification, that correlation implies causation"? In a sense, the author is still making a presumption about how correlation and causation are linked but just in the negative. Or will they explicitly word the answer as "the author presumes, without justification, that a lack of correlation implies a lack of causation"?

Thank you!!

[James Finch]

Hi Alyssa

Correlation is a form of evidence, showing a relationship between two phenomena. Absence of evidence is not definitive proof that something doesn't exist, so any conclusion that does this is committing a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance, regardless of whether this is a causal argument or not. So the answer to your question is that yes, that would be a logical flaw, and there are many ways that it could be worded in an answer choice. Recent LSATs have tended to contain at least one very tricky flaw question based around the wording of the correct answer choice in the context of the stimulus, so always do your best to cut through obtuse phrasings or strange flaws to the meaning of each answer choice.

Hope this clears things up!

[AlyssaY]

Thank you James, definitely makes sense!!