#20 - The ability of mammals to control their internal body

[Capetowner]

Being a factor in something is not conditional, Henry Z. Conditional reasoning is about something being necessary 100% of the time when something sufficient occurs. Most of the time, if the author says that one thing is a factor in another thing, they are describing a causal relationship. Think of a factor as one influential element. It might not cause something all on its own, but it is part of a cause.

It's generally safe to interpret a double negative as you did, so "not independent" is "dependent."

Therefore will it be correct with a statement like "a factor in", the effect not occurring would mean the cause (including said factor) does not occur? At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" indeed occurs, this would not guarantee the effect. How would this all tie into conditionality?

[Capetowner]

Being a factor in something is not conditional, Henry Z. Conditional reasoning is about something being necessary 100% of the time when something sufficient occurs. Most of the time, if the author says that one thing is a factor in another thing, they are describing a causal relationship. Think of a factor as one influential element. It might not cause something all on its own, but it is part of a cause.

It's generally safe to interpret a double negative as you did, so "not independent" is "dependent."

Therefore will it be correct with a statement like "a factor in", the effect not occurring would mean the cause (including said factor) does not occur? At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" indeed occurs, this would not guarantee the effect. How would this all tie into conditionality?

Edit* At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" does not occur, this would not guarantee the effect does not occur. How would this all tie into conditionality?