#6 - Skeletal remains of early humans indicate clearly that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

Since our ancestors had fewer dental problems than we have, their diet must have been different from ours:

• Cause Effect
  Diet Dental health

The conclusion suggests an explanation (or the “cause”) for the observation that early humans had fewer dental problems. The author is missing a logical connection between diet and dental health: the more the former contributes to the latter, the stronger the conclusion will be. Answer choice (E) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is tempting, but incorrect. Even if healthy diet led to healthy teeth, we have no evidence that our ancestors’ diet was healthier than ours. The author’s conclusion is simply that their diet was different from ours, not necessarily healthier than ours. To avoid Shell Game decoy answers in Strengthen questions, look for answer choices that support the exact conclusion given.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice undermines the central premise of the argument, and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice suggests that early humans had a diet that was similar to ours, not different from it. This is the exact opposite of the conclusion we need to support.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice provides an alternate cause for the observation that early humans had fewer dental problems: they simply did not live long enough to acquire them. Since this weakens the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If diet is by far the most significant factor contributing to dental health, this precludes the possibility that an alternate cause can have a more potent effect on dental health.

[powerguy]

Experts,
I am going through the Powerscore Guide again (I have gone through it once). I still cannot understand what casual argument is.

What's the difference between these three arguments?

(Situation - My friend was fired because he hated Curiosity Mars Rover)

Argument #1
My friend hates Mars mission.
My friend was fired because she hated Curiosity, the Mars Rover.

Argument #2
My friend was fired.
It must be because she hated Curiosity mission.

Argument #3
My friend, who hates Martian missions, was fired.
It must be because she hated Curiosity, Martian rover.

In my opinion, #1 is not causal. "Because" just introduces a premise. However, in #2 and #3, the author gives a reasoning. HEnce, they are causal.

Am I correct?

I hope that I could get a bit of a detailed reply. I am trying to find out general circumstances (I know that there are no specific rules) to understand a causal and non-causal argument.

Another example - Because Mary ate the candy, she will be promoted to VP. Is this causal? Or "Because" is used as a premise indicator?

REally confusing....Sorry for a long question, but I thought of asking the writers of this excellent book.




Thanks

[Nicholas Bruno]

I would not draw a differentiation between "reasoning" and "cause-effect" as you do below for the simple reason that cause-effect reasoning is a type of reasoning.

In a cause and effect relationship, event A causes event B. In other words, A makes B happen. In your hype about Mary getting promoted to VP, the way you worded the argument does make is causal as she was promoted for the reason that she at the candy.

Does that make sense?

[powerguy]

Ok. Do you think that the three arguments mentioned in my post are ALL causal? I am a bit confused.


Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

These arguments are all at least partially causal - the use of "because" makes it so. Causality can show up in a premise or in a conclusion, or both. What will matter most, though, is what the LSAT authors then DO with these causal statements.

For example, an argument could include a causal premise, such as "My friend was fired because she hates the Curiosity Mars rover," and could follow with a non-causal conclusion, such as "Therefore, people who want to keep their jobs ought to keep their opinions to themselves." This argument might be followed by a parallel reasoning question stem, or a principal question stem, or a flaw in the reasoning question stem, or many others. The thing you need to concern yourself with is not just "is this causal", but rather "how does the causal reasoning here impact my analysis of the answer choices?"

If the conclusion is causal, you will often be looking to strengthen, weaken, or identify a flaw (although others could come up). if the premise is causal and the conclusion is not, then it could go any number of ways. Just be aware that any causal statement (A causes B, A leads to B, B results from A, A produces B, etc.) is suspect on the LSAT, and can lead you towards eliminating losers and selecting contenders among the answer choices.

Hope that helps,

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[powerguy]

Thanks Adam. But then what is the difference between these two arguments:

#1:-
Premise : Johnny hates Curiosity Mars Rover
Conclusion : He was fired

VS.

#2:-
Premise : Johnny hates Curiosity Mars Rover
Conclusion : Because he hates Mars missions, Johnny must have been fired.

I think that #1 is a non-causal argument. However, as Powerscore book states, I can use "Because" for a non-causal (Pg 13) and a causal argument (Causal reasoning chapter), how can I know whether the argument is causal? I am still not clear.

Please help me. I am really confused.

Thanks

[Jon Denning]

I'd likely make the case that example #1 there isn't really an "argument" at all. I mean, was he fired? If he was then that's just a fact, not a statement of belief like example #2 (he must have been/should be fired).

But your question is more about causality in general than the distinction between those specific constructions, so I'll address causal reasoning in broader terms. The key to recognizing causality, for me anyway, is action: two or more things/events are related to one another in terms of something actively producing something else. Language like "because" can be a clue that this is happening, but I think the most important thing is to focus on the idea inherent to the relationship itself. Is something said to occur as a result of something else? Is something said to make something else occur? If so, you've got a causal relationship. Note that that's also a good way to distinguish it from conditional reasoning, since conditionality doesn't rely on one thing actively producing another (or actively being produced), but rather it's just two or more things related in absolute, consistent terms.

So always be on the lookout for that idea of action as you read, asking "Are these terms related to each other in a way where one makes/is made by the other?" If the answer is "yes" you know it's causal and you can respond accordingly.

Hope that helps!

JD

[powerguy]

Jon,

Thanks for your reply. Let's take this example:

PT40 - S1 #6

The conclusion uses a correlation indicator "most likely" (which means a greater than 50% probability). However, the strengthener E) uses a causal language. How do we know whether the causality is implied or stated? There is no causal indicator. I could argue that the author is just taking one correlation (in premise) and projecting (another correlation). The premise is also based around correlation between dental problems that existed in ancient times vs. today.

Here's an example that I can think of:
Premise : Birds on Earth eat more fat than those on Mars.
Conclusion : Most likely, Chimps on Earth have more weight than those on Mars.

Is this a causal? No. I could argue that I am using "extrapolation" techniques in mathematical language to have a relationship (correlation and not causation) between the two. Another example - I get a new computer every 12 years. There is a sunspot cycle every 12 years. AGain two correlations.



Can you please help. This example really tripped me up. Really appreciate your help.

Thanks

[Nikki Siclunov]

Let me offer my 2c here. The examples you provide are quite different from Q6 on S1, PT 40. In your examples, there is no implied causation: indeed, you are extrapolating one correlation from another. Your argument is simply based on the use of analogy between chimps and birds, and your conclusion is only as good as the comparison between the two is. The flaw in your argument, if any, has to to with false analogy, not causation. The conclusion does not explain the premise.

The example from Q6 is quite different. In it, the author observes that our ancestors had fewer dental problems than we have - this comparison is a factual premise for the conclusion that the diet of early humans was very different from ours. There is a strong causation implied here, because the conclusion serves to explain the premise: why did the early hominids have fewer dental problems than we do? Because of their diet:

Cause: Diet was different
Effect: Ancestors had fewer dental problems

This relationship is implied, rather than being explicitly stated using causal indicators. Nevertheless, it is crucial to understanding the logic behind the argument. Remember: causal reasoning is inherent in any argument where the conclusion seeks to provide an explanation for some observed phenomenon (which is usually presented as a premise). Whenever you see that relationship, you are dealing with causation.

Answer choice (E) strengthens the argument because it reaffirms the proposition that diet, and not some other factor, is responsible for the difference in dental health observed. Answer choice (D), by contrast, weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observed effect: early humans did not live long enough to develop cavities, etc.

[powerguy]

Nikki,
Thanks for your reply. I see your point about implicit causality. However, what if I reverse the order of the premise and conclusion:

Premise (Cause) : Ancestors' diet was different than ours
Conclusion (Effect ):: Hence, they had less dental cavities than we do.

Even in this case, the author seem to be explaining the effect, even though we haven't used any causal indicators. In your opinion, is this causal?

Please help me