#10 - Advertisement: VIVVY, a video-based foreign language

[ZenGen]

When I read this question the first thought that came to mind was correlation ≠ causation so I expected a direct identify the Flaw type question. I like that the explanation for this problem made the distinctions between probabilistic reasoning or coincidence not leading to causation, those are better ways of looking at the stimulus and the answer choices.

The source of confusion for me and why I mentioned Conditional Reasoning in my previous post is because answer (D) reads as a Mistaken Reversal to me, and answer (C) like it wants to be a valid contrapositive but for the fact that "... will be laid off" doesn't quite match "...expect to be laid off"
Am I misreading those types of problems, or do some arguments seem to contain elements of both Conditional and Causal Reasoning? Would an answer choice be 'automatically' wrong if the reasoning of the stimulus and the reasoning of the answer choice differ?

There is a section in the logical reasoning Bible that talks about Necessary and Sufficient Causes, I think it means that there's an overlap between these two types of reasoning(?) and I'm not always sure where and when that occurs other than on some topics it makes common sense. Is a Necessary Cause erroneously implied in this argument?

[ZenGen]

Problem #16 in this preptest also presents that Causal Reasoning with some Conditional elements. Answer choices (B) and (E) were the only 2 choices with conditional elements, but (B) is a Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer so 8 went with (E).
Please advise if my understanding is valid. Thanks.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi commandercody,

While we'd probably classify this flaw as causal (specifically mistaking a coincidence for a causal relationship), I can see how part-to-whole would be another way to think of the flaw here.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ZenGen,

Matching the wording of the conclusion can be useful in narrowing down the list of answers and getting to the correct answer more quickly. However, just to be clear, I'd still confirm that whatever answer matches the conclusion of the stimulus matches the other elements (such as the premises and reasoning) before selecting it, even if only one answer choice has a similar conclusion.

While some arguments do contain elements of both conditional reasoning and causal reasoning and there are times when these concepts do overlap, usually they should be viewed separately. In the argument in this stimulus, even though the conclusion is a conditional statement, the flaw is not a conditional flaw. Answer D does contain a conditional flaw (a Mistaken Reversal), so it is not parallel.

There is a section in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" that discusses the differences between conditional and causal reasoning, but I can't recall a discussion of Necessary and Sufficient Causes.

[ZenGen]

Hi ZenGen,

Matching the wording of the conclusion can be useful in narrowing down the list of answers and getting to the correct answer more quickly. However, just to be clear, I'd still confirm that whatever answer matches the conclusion of the stimulus matches the other elements (such as the premises and reasoning) before selecting it, even if only one answer choice has a similar conclusion.

While some arguments do contain elements of both conditional reasoning and causal reasoning and there are times when these concepts do overlap, usually they should be viewed separately. In the argument in this stimulus, even though the conclusion is a conditional statement, the flaw is not a conditional flaw. Answer D does contain a conditional flaw (a Mistaken Reversal), so it is not parallel.

There is a section in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" that discusses the differences between conditional and causal reasoning, but I can't recall a discussion of Necessary and Sufficient Causes.

Thank you for your response, Jeff. I set this problem aside for a couple of days, then looked at it strictly from a Cause + Effect lense. Rereading the Complete Explanation, I can see how it is easier to solve without mixing the different concepts. I will keep working on this.

I have the 2024 Logical Reasoning Bible. Chapter 8 is the one that talks about the difference between Causal and Conditional reasoning. In the "Advanced Causal Reasoning Review" section on pages 307-308 is where it talks about Necessary and Sufficient Causes. The book's website also has a section about this.