#4 - It is more desirable to have some form of socialized

[Julie777]

Hi!

According to your explanation, the tutor said the cause here is 'technologically superior' and the effect is 'lower infant mortality' but i still can't understand why.

What I thought is the reversed version of that.

The cause is 'lower infant mortality' and the effect is 'tech superior'.

And answer choice (A) suggests that the cause can be actually the effect of the other cause, which breaks the causal relationship between 'lower infant mortality' and 'tech superior.' So basically (A) is saying the cause is 'broader access' and the effect is 'tech superior.'

Am i right about my thought process?

[Julie777]

Hi!

According to your explanation, the cause here is 'technologically superior' and the effect is 'lower infant mortality' but i still can't understand why.

What I thought is the reversed version of that.

The cause is 'lower infant mortality' and the effect is 'tech superior'. (because of the premise indicator, since)

And answer choice (A) suggests that the cause can be actually the effect of the other cause, which breaks the causal relationship between 'lower infant mortality' and 'tech superior.' So basically (A) is saying the cause is 'broader access' and the effect is 'tech superior.'

Am i right about my thought process?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Julie,

Yes, the superior technology is the cause and the effect is the lower infant mortality.

I think that you are confusing the premise indicator "since" with having to list the cause, but that's not how it works. The premise can give the "effect," and the conclusion can give the "cause."

This happens quite often in causal arguments.

For example,

These people have lung cancer. Therefore, they must smoke cigarettes.

In this example, smoking cigarettes is the proposed cause of the lung cancer, even though it appears in the conclusion. In other words, the reason that the argument concludes that they must smoke cigarettes is to explain the effect (having lung cancer). Of course, like most causal arguments, this is a flawed argument as there could be many other causes for lung cancer such as air pollution, etc..

In this question, the superior technology is the proposed cause for the lower infant mortality. In other words, it explains why there is a lower infant mortality. Once again, like most causal arguments, there could be other explanations, such as what appears in Answer A.

(In addition, it wouldn't really make sense that a lower infant mortality would cause the technology to be superior.)