#11 - Recent studies indicate a correlation between damage

[jared.xu]

Hi Dave,

Sorry to bug you again with causal relationships. I have one concrete question this time about a flaw question with a causal relationship. It is from the Take-Home Test Oct 2004, Section 2 LR 1 problem #1 (1. The tidal range at a particular location...). The conclusion appears to be trying to get rid of alternative causes by saying, “the magnitudes of tidal ranges also must be explained ENTIRELY by gravitational forces.” The premise right before the conclusion is a causal relationship: “the only forces involved in inducing the tides are the sun’s and moon’s gravity….” It appears that the assumption in this argument is that because a causal relationship exists, there must not be alternative causes. And so the flaw in the reasoning is (B) that the author fails to consider “conditions” that could affect the size of the tidal range. I actually got this problem wrong because I could not identify the flaw. I thought it was a very logical conclusion. The premise tells us that there is only one cause for the tides, that is, the sun’s and moon’s gravity. The conclusion which tries to eliminate alternative causes seems like a logical conclusion. How would you approach this question so that you could realize what the flaw is? What type of error would this argument be categorized under? (ex. Error of composition? Error of dilemma?) And what do you think we could learn from this question in terms of causal relationships and their assumptions? (it seems the five ways of strengthening or weakening does not apply at all here since the causal relationship is not in the conclusion). Thank you in advance for replying.
Jared

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Jared,

It's no problem at all. Let's take a look at what's happening here, because I think you are trying to put everything into these nice clean logic boxes, and that can work sometimes, but there are just too many factors in play in a typical question for that to be successful as a sole strategy.

First, let's look at the causal premise. They say that gravity is the only force involved in "inducing" tides. That's a pretty important qualification because it just means that gravity gets the tides going. Thereafter, according to that premise structure, other factors could come in and affect tides (for example, depth of the water, coastline formations, etc). So, it looks like your reading of the premise was overly broad--you saw cause, and assumed that gravity was the only thing involved at all with the tides. But the premise doesn't say that--it just says gravity "induces" the tides. Thereafter, anything is possible (because they don't rule it out, it's possible).

Second, let's look at the conclusion. Based on the above, the author's conclusion is problematic because "entirely" goes too far. The premise supports that gravitational forces are definitely involved, but there is not justification to say they account for the tides "entirely."

So, what I see is a conclusion that is overly broad (or absolute) based on a premise that only partially supports the conclusion. It's a form of an error in the use of evidence: evidence that supports a certain position is taken (and then exaggerated) into a conclusion that is broader than warranted.

The key here is that you can't see an idea like causality and then automatically go into a mode where you disregard the contextual information that affects that causality, or ignore qualifying statements made by the test makers. The makers of the LSAT are just smart to allow for such simplification (unfortunately!).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[jared.xu]

Hey Dave,

Thank you so much for the explanations. I am trying to pay more attention to the contextual information. However, no matter how hard I try, I still get causal problems wrong. I have two more examples of my inability to understand why my causal logic is not right. The first is from the supplementary section October 2003 Reading Comprehension Q 20. Problem 20 shows us that it is a weaken question: “Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the author’s assertion in the last sentence of the passage?” The last sentence happens to be a causal statement: “Because the Danish agency, unlike its U.S. counterpart, recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels, the project has a good chance of remaining competitive and profitable for the long run.” When I read that, I looked for an answer that fits the five ways of weakening causal relationships. I chose B because it gives us an alternative cause: “The Danish energy agency invested more funds in the India project than the U.S. agency invested in the Brazil project.” This shows that it is not the recognition of the importance of local involvement that made the Danish firm succeed, but merely more investment. “A” happens to be the right answer. I eliminated it because it talks of “temporary subsidies from the Indian government.” This seems to actually, fit under the five ways of strengthening causal relationship. “Temporary subsidies from the Indian government” would certainly fall under the “local involvement at all levels,” and therefore, emphasizes the fact that the cause happened.” (I think that local involvement at all levels should certainly include any local governments). Why do you think my analysis is wrong? What step would you have taken to not fall into this kind of causal trap?

My second example comes from Take Home Test June 2004. Question 12 S1, Q12 “Which one of the following does the passage offer as evidence that code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors?” This question contains a causal relationship that I would diagram as “situational factors--> code-switching.” And we are supposed to weaken this relationship. Both B and C actually do so. They both fall under the category of “showing that the effect happens without the cause.” C, which was what I ended up choosing, shows that when there is no change in the situational context, code-switching often happens anyway. B, the right answer, shows that code-switching happens sometimes in the wrong situational factors. I thought that “sometimes” (B) is not as strong as “often” (C). So I went with C rather than B. Could you tell me what’s wrong with my reasoning here? Am I being too simplistic in my application of Powerscore’s technique again? I also got the next question, Q13 (another causal problem) wrong. It asks: “Which one of the following, if true, would most cast doubt on the author’s interpretation of the study involving the family discussed in the third paragraph?” It seems to be a classic causal-weakening question. The causal relationship is: “intimacy + humor--> code-switching.” I went with answer C, which seems to show “cause with no effect.” It states that Intimacy and humor (cause) were occasionally expressed through the use of English expressions (no code-switching). The correct answer A does not make sense to me because one can still explain sudden switches to Spanish without situational factors by emphasizing the rhetorical reasons (intimacy and humor). Could you also explain where I erred in this question as well?

Well, with your help, I do think I'm getting much better at causal problems. But it's extremely frustrating that I still get some of them wrong, without even knowing why. Thank you so much for hanging in there for me!

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Jared,

Thanks for the reply. Let's take a look at the first example, and let's begin by assessing the final sentence of the passage. Is there causality here? Yes, but it is a really weak form of causality. The Danish agency recognized the importance of local investment, and that created "a good chance of remaining competitive." That's not really much of a clearly defined effect. In the classic causality we talk about in our books and courses, you typically have a strong cause creating a single, obvious concrete effect (whereas here we have a cause creating a "chance"). There are a number of variations on this theme, but that's the basic starting point for the discussion. Can you see how this example isn't in that classic vein? It's important because the language they've used here opens up a lot of uncertainty, and thus the answers don't necessarily have to fall into a clear, neat category (although I think (A) in the first problem does something that is clear).

This somewhat goes back to a statement I made in an earlier reply to you, namely that you have to be careful in assessing the presence of causality. If you look closely enough, you can find it just about anywhere, but on the LSAT, the further causality strays from the "classic" relationship, the more options they have to manipulate the answers. See it when it's there and clearly stated; don't try to read it into everything

Let's move on and look at the question that connects to this sentence, question #20. Let's start with (B) first. I can see how you saw this as weakening the statement based on your explanation, but the problem is that this isn't a proven alternate cause. The author could easily reply to this, "Yes, but that's because the nature of the project in India was a bit different and had inherently higher costs (maybe it served more people, for example). The success of the Indian project was still increased by recognizing that local investment was key." Thus, (B) becomes relative and that doesn't help us here.

With answer choice (A), you have to look at the last sentence a bit closer and realize that the cause in that claim is that the Danish agency "recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels." Again, that's a pretty broad and weak cause. Effectively, what (A) says is that you were wrong about the Danish agency recognizing the importance of involvement as the cause, it was instead the fact that subsidies were given that made the thing work in the first place (and now we can't even be sure it will remain profitable in the long run). This calls the whole cause and effect relationship into question. As an aside, note also the clear causal language in answer choice (A).

This is also an RC question, and there's a further danger with RC because there is so much other info in the passage that affects what is said in any given sentence (certainly far more than in any LR question). While I understand your broad interpretation of "local involvement," I don't think the test makers would agree. Earlier in the passage, on line 28, the passage references "local utilities" and later "private investment," "local Brazilian companies," "local production," and "local production capacity." They seem to be pointing to the idea of "local involvement" as one by local companies with local resources, and not as a government-based enterprise (this use of similar language continues on in the last paragraph as well).

Take a look at this question again, and then go take a look at your other example again, and let me know if this doesn't help change your outlook a bit on what's happening in these two problems. If not, we can discuss it further.

Thanks!

[jared.xu]

Hey Dave,

Thank you for that detailed explanation. I see why the correct answer is A now. I agree completely that the answer I chose B is relative and not a "proven alternative cause." I see that my problem is with my understanding of "local involvement at all levels." I don't know whether it is because I lack common sense or certain background knowledge, but I still don't see clearly how "local involvement at all levels" precludes government subsidies. I reread the passage, especially where you pointed to for evidence, and still feel the term is ambiguous. Paragraph two states: "An energy agency...developed a joint project with two Brazilian states..." (25-26). The reference to local governments make me feel that there is a possibility that the "local utilities" (29) could be state government owned energy companies. And so when I read "local production" (35) and "local production capacity" (38), I feel that we do not have enough information to know that the idea of "local involvement" precludes government-based enterprises. Granted that the mentioning of the failure to attract "private investment" (31) from "local Brazilian companies" (33-34) shows that Brazil's failure can be attributed to lack of private investment, it still does not preclude the possibility that "local involvement at all levels" includes government subsidies.

I know that your interpretation and understanding is the one that the LSAC testmakers share. But I am frustrated that my lack of either background knowledge or "common sense" is interfering with my ability to comprehend the passage the way that the testmakers want me to.

Thank you for giving me a chance to figure out my second example on my own. I now understand why I was wrong in Q12. Although both B and C introduce "effect with no cause," B (the right answer) is what the passage offers as evidence. And the scope of C (my answer) is too wide since the study deals with a family of Puerto Rican Americans. However, Q13, a weaken question, is still giving me trouble. It asks: “Which one of the following, if true, would most cast doubt on the author’s interpretation of the study involving the family discussed in the third paragraph?” The causal relationship is: “rhetorical effects (expressing certain attitudes such as intimacy or humor)--> code-switching.” I went with answer C, which seems to show “cause with no effect.” It states that Intimacy and humor (cause) were occasionally expressed through the use of English expressions (no code-switching). You probably will say that this isn't a proven "cause with no effect," and that the author could easily reply that he/she never said that all intimate or humorous rhetorical effects had to be spoken in Spanish in this family. However, the correct answer A does not make sense to me either because the author could just as easily reply: "yes, but the need for the rhetorical effects (expressing attitudes such as intimacy and humor) never came up when their conversations were taped in a previous twelve-month study." As always, I would really appreciate your guidance!

[Dave Killoran]

Let me respond first to the conclusion of our discussion of #20. I probably wasn't clear about the "local involvement" issue. My point was that while the test makers probably can make the argument that it doesn't include the government, that's actually a moot point because (A) would still be right either way. If the profitability was due to temporary subsidies, that attacks the idea that it was the Danish agency's recognition that had an effect. Kind of like saying, "it wasn't your recognition of local involvement that has made this profitable, it's the fact that they got temporary subsidies that made it work, for now." (A) to me calls the whole assertion into question, all the way back to, "Was the project even a success?"

That said, I don't see these issues on your part as coming from a lack of background knowledge or common sense. Instead, I see it as apparently emanating from two aspects that are related to each other:

1. You aren't picking up some of the nuances of the language they are using. For example, in the discussion of the question about tides, they used the word "induced" in their discussion of causality. That word choice was critical to understanding what was occurring in the problem. If you miss that, or, rather, don't realize that it is important, your chances of missing the problem increase.

2. From what you've said in previous posts, I see a tendency on your part that when you see any causal elements, you want to paint the entire relationship as simple cause and effect with no possible variation. That puts you in a rigid mindset and you aren't really open to the nuances of the language used by the test makers (as in the "induced" language example in #1 above). The questions that have been frustrating you so far have almost all been examples where the causality wasn't strong or where the language they used opened the door to more scenarios than you expected.

Plus, you have to remember that some of these problems are really tricky. You are probably getting a lot of other problems right, but because those don't trouble you, they don't feel notable. Then, when you miss a few and they don't appear to match your initial analysis, those really stand out and feel frustrating.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

As far as June 2004, Section 1, Question 12 (the Code-Switching passage), I wanted to see what would happen when you went back to that question because initially you classified it as a Weaken question, when it is in fact a Must Be True question. That changes the situation entirely because now you are just trying to find what they did, not supply an answer that achieves a certain result. I almost think this may be a symptom of point #21 in my prior post, where you saw causality and wanted to pair it up with weakening since that's something that you typically want to see on the LSAT. Regardless, good job on recognizing what was actually happening there when you went back.

Let's look at #13 in that same passage. I see you wanting to impute causality into this question, and that leads you to misinterpret the situation. Take a look at what they ask you to do: "Which one of the following, if true, would most cast doubt on the author’s interpretation of the study involving the family discussed in the third paragraph?" To me, the author's interpretation is that situational factors do not account for all code-switching (and that other factors can at times account for it). You've taken that last portion and expanded into a rock-solid causal relationship: "The causal relationship is: “rhetorical effects (expressing certain attitudes such as intimacy or humor)--> code-switching.” " This misinterpretation isn't about a lack of context or common sense (as I think you feared before); you are simply drawing a new (and unfortunately incorrect) interpretation from what was said. With the wrong interpretation, the question obviously becomes very difficult to answer correctly.

With a clearer understanding of the author's interpretation, (A) makes a lot more sense: it simply weakens the interpretation by showing that everything can be explained by situational factors.

As for (C), I'd reply that this answer choice says that on some occasions, code-switching did not occur. But this does not help to evaluate whether or not all code-switching which does occur can be explained by situational factors. Therefore, it cannot cast doubt on the author’s interpretation.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[jared.xu]

Hey Dave,

Thank you for these double postings and your suggestions for me. Wow! Your second post really shows how important it is understand what exactly is the author's interpretation of the study involving the family discussed in the third paragraph. I actually tried to get a broader picture and pay attention to the context as you told me to. What threw me off was the last sentence in paragraph 1, which is the main point of the passage: "While there are some cases that cannot currently be explained, in the vast majority of cases subtle factors, either situational or rhetorical, explain the use of code-switching" (7-10). Why did that main point statement throw me off? Well, I thought that the 2nd paragraph addresses the situational portion, and the 3rd paragraph addresses the rhetorical portion. (I was trying to be a good Powerscore student and pay attention to the "s" of viewstamp.) And so although the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph does state: "situational factors do not account for all code-switching" (44), I took this statement as nothing more than a transitional statement to the second portion of the author's main point, i.e. rhetorical factors explain the use of code-switching. And that is the reasons I established the causal relationship: “rhetorical effects (expressing certain attitudes such as intimacy or humor)--> code-switching.” I felt that the "author's interpretation of the study" is precisely this second portion of the main point. It seems that I misinterpreted the situation not because I did not pay attention to the context this time, but I paid too much attention to the context in the entire passage, especially to the main point statement. I am wondering whether you could comment on this situation/problem and advise me on how to avoid it in the future.

I still have some lingering questions on #20 of the Oct 2003 Reading Comp Section. It is less "causal" in nature, and more about the concept of "local involvement." You said that it is a moot point whether government involvement is included in the term "local involvement." But in my mind, it is still a big deal. I do not feel that if the profitability was due to temporary subsidies, it attacks the idea that it was the Danish agency's recognition that had an effect. In my mind, it could still be the Danish agency's recognition that the local Indian government are willing to get involved (local involvement) that prompted them to start this project in the first place. Maybe I have an incorrect understanding of the connotation of "subsidy," but I see it merely as money granted by a government to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. To me, it does not connote success or lack of success, nor the project's profitability or lack thereof. I'm perfectly okay with the idea that the project could be temporarily subsidized and still have "a good chance" of remaining competitive and profitable for the long run (granted that the subsidies contributed to its competitiveness and profitability).

I am doing nothing but LSAT these days and so unfortunately I encountered another causal problem I couldn't solve even though I did what you taught me. That is from the Take Home Test June 2001. S2, Q 25 "25. Although wood-burning stoves are more efficient..." It's a weakening question, and the good news is that the stimulus is short. It obviously strays from the "classic" relationship. It can be diagram as this: "Smoke that wood-burning stoves releases are slower and deposits more creosote (which can clog a chimney or ignite inside it)--> More Dangerous." I feel that answers A, B, and C could all work. It seems arbitrary that C is the right answer. C is basically "cause with no effect." But the author could easily retort that the qualifier "inside the home" limits his or her general statement significantly that s/he could still be right. Answer A is basically takes away the cause. But the author could also easily retort that the qualifier "the most efficient" also limits the general statement significantly that s/he could still be right. B is what I ended up choosing because I thought it was the most intellectually sophisticated and could do justice to the complexity of this stimulus. It also takes away the cause by saying that the amount of creosote is not certain. It really depends on individual cases of how often the stove or fireplace is used. As I am writing this, I now do see that C is hinting that there could be other severe accidents that are not creosote-related and not mentioned in the stimulus that open fireplaces could cause. And it could be stronger than A or B. Writing this sort of made me answer my own question, but it still doesn't answer my issue of the qualifier "inside the home." So could you still tell me why is C inherently better than A or B? And please also tell me what is my logical flaw or what I misinterpreted here. Really appreciate your help.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Jared,

I'll take your various questions one by one, in series of short posts.

Regarding the Code Switching RC passage, I basically agree with your interpretation of the passage and main point. Your mistake wasn't in your overall interpretation (which is good because it means ViewStamp is working for you!), but in something I somewhat pointed out earlier: you changed the meaning of the last paragraph into something it is not. You said in your last message: "I took this statement as nothing more than a transitional statement to the second portion of the author's main point, i.e. rhetorical factors explain the use of code-switching." But, the claim wasn't that rhetorical factors explain every situation (as you seem to have interpreted it), just that they explain some situations. In short, what is killing in you in most of these questions is either not seeing certain words as important, or taking something that was said and then running too far with it. As an aside, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm trying to focus on, and eliminate, any issues you might be having

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

As for the October 2003 Reading Comp Section, question #20, first remember that it is a temporary subsidy that is under discussion. Second, consider this argument, which has some similarities to what we are talking about:

Statement: "Tom's new lemonade stand made $50 last week!"

Response: "No, it didn't because Tom's Dad gave him a temporary subsidy of $100 last week to get by. Without that subsidy, he actually lost $50."

The issue of the temporary subsidy is huge because it won't be there every time, and it call into question the profitability and sustainability of the whole venture