- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Wed Nov 19, 2025 3:55 pm
#122032
Hi Capetowner,
Unfortunately, we cannot respond to other LSAT materials, drills, examples, etc. (other than actual LSAT logical reasoning and reading comprehension questions from released LSATs and our own PowerScore materials).
You wrote:
Powerscore says "probable cause" is not causality.
I'm assuming that you're referring here to this sentence from the earlier post (Post #5) from Nicholas.
Here, the "probably" doesn't give us causation. It's merely an expression of probability.
While I don't want to speak for Nicholas, my guess is that Nicholas is making a distinction between probable causes and certain causes (i.e. the full/absolute causal reasoning that usually appears in logical reasoning). While these two concepts are not identical, they are related. There's a good discussion on possible and probable causes in the chapter on causal reasoning in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" that discusses this very topic.
You asked:
Would concluding probable cause from correlation be valid?
No, even concluding a probable cause from a correlation can be flawed.
For example, imagine the following argument.
Ice cream sales are positively correlated with drive-by shootings. Therefore, eating ice cream probably causes an increase in drive-by shootings.
Even with the "probably" modifier in the conclusion, this is still a flawed argument. Hopefully, the flaw is obvious. The reason that ice cream sales and drive-by shootings are positively correlated (which they actually are) is that both activities increase during warm weather and decrease during cold weather.
Unfortunately, we cannot respond to other LSAT materials, drills, examples, etc. (other than actual LSAT logical reasoning and reading comprehension questions from released LSATs and our own PowerScore materials).
You wrote:
Powerscore says "probable cause" is not causality.
I'm assuming that you're referring here to this sentence from the earlier post (Post #5) from Nicholas.
Here, the "probably" doesn't give us causation. It's merely an expression of probability.
While I don't want to speak for Nicholas, my guess is that Nicholas is making a distinction between probable causes and certain causes (i.e. the full/absolute causal reasoning that usually appears in logical reasoning). While these two concepts are not identical, they are related. There's a good discussion on possible and probable causes in the chapter on causal reasoning in "The Logical Reasoning Bible" that discusses this very topic.
You asked:
Would concluding probable cause from correlation be valid?
No, even concluding a probable cause from a correlation can be flawed.
For example, imagine the following argument.
Ice cream sales are positively correlated with drive-by shootings. Therefore, eating ice cream probably causes an increase in drive-by shootings.
Even with the "probably" modifier in the conclusion, this is still a flawed argument. Hopefully, the flaw is obvious. The reason that ice cream sales and drive-by shootings are positively correlated (which they actually are) is that both activities increase during warm weather and decrease during cold weather.