Conditional reasoning vs. causal reasoning

[cindyhylee87]

Hi,

I understand that conditional reasoning and causal reasoning are different. However, I am not quite sure how to deal with a conditional reasoning based weaken question with answer choices containing causal relationship. For example, on p.249 of the bible, the stimulus is made by conditional premises and conditional conclusion, however, answer choice (C) contains a causal reasoning.

Thank,
Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, Cindy! Conditional reasoning and causal reasoning are often confused, especially when the conditional relationship makes sense as a causal one. "If I eat food with a high salt content I retain water" is purely conditional in form, but it would be easy to draw a causal conclusion from it - that the salt content is causing the water retention. However, when the stimulus doesn't make that leap in the conclusion, or contains no conclusion at all (as is the case in many Must Be True questions), then we want to avoid making that leap ourselves and instead constrain ourselves to just using conditional tools to analyze the answer choices. In this case, if there was no conclusion, I would not pick an answer that talked about cause and effect, but would instead look for one that took advantage of the contrapositive, saying that whenever I do not retain water I did not eat very salty food.

If, on the other hand, the author uses a conditional premise to support a causal conclusion ("therefore, salty food causes me to retain water"), then you should absolutely attack that argument with causal tools and look for alternate causes, cause without effect, reversals, etc. Causal reasoning is more powerful than conditional reasoning, and so when both are present it's typically best to focus on the causality rather than the conditionality.

So, when faced with a conditional stimulus that has no causal claims in it, whether you are asked to weaken it, strengthen it, identify the underlying assumptions, deduce what must be true, point out a flaw in the reasoning, or anything else, you should usually consign any answer that brings up causation to the "loser" pile. The only time you would bring one of those causal answers back into consideration is if there are no better answers available that deal with conditional reasoning. As long as you have any answers that talk about sufficient and necessary conditions, you should focus on those as your contenders.

If that didn't help regarding the particular question you were looking at in the LR Bible, then tell me more about that question. I want to be sure we are looking at the same edition before I assume that we are looking at the same question, since I have at least two editions on hand and they do not have the same question on that page. Just give me a few key words from the stimulus and I'll be able to look at it with you.

Thanks for the question, and I hope this was helpful!

[cindyhylee87]

Hi Adam,

just for your reference, the question I was referring to is "all nations that place a high tax..."

Thank you for the explanation.

Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

I see that one in my 2016 edition, and it's an interesting one because of the EXCEPT nature of the question and what I perceive to be a mixture of conditional and causal language. "Are destined to lose their voice" - is that "it will happen" or is that "it is an effect (of being in a strategically disadvantageous position)"? I lean towards it being conditional, but saying that the sufficient condition doesn't cause the necessary condition could still weaken the original claim by introducing at least some level of doubt. With a Weaken-Except question, we will need to eliminate any answer that does any damage to the argument, even if only a little, and end up selecting the one that does no damage at all. On a typical, straight-forward Weaken question we would not be happy to pick an answer with causal language, but in this case, since we need to find 4 answers that all weaken the argument, we can be a lot more forgiving in that analysis.

Really good question, Cindy, and a keen eye for the conditional/causal distinction!

[cindyhylee87]

Hi Adam,

It seems to me that you are saying that we focus most on the conclusion no matter it's based on causal or conditional reasoning. So when we are doing weaken question, we assess first, and if the conclusion is based on causal reasoning, we try to find another cause for the effect; on the other hand, if the conclusion contains conditional reasoning, we try to find an answer which shows the sufficient condition occurs when necessary doesn't.

Then, here come another question. I am aware that weaken question usually contains flawed reasoning. So, when the premises are made by conditional reasoning and the conclusion is either causal or conditional, could we actually attack the premises to make the conclusion less likely to make sense? (But since the conclusion is flawed already, it does not seem to me that attacking premises would do any harm)

Thanks,
Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

It's not just weaken questions that are flawed, Cindy - almost ALL arguments on the LSAT are flawed! Typically the flaw is not in the premises or in the conclusion itself, but in the missing link between them. The premises do not, by themselves, prove the conclusion to be true. We usually accept the premises as true and focus on why they don't prove the conclusion, but sometimes we may attack the premises also. This is especially common in a Weaken-Except question, where we have to find four things wrong with the argument. In that case, saying that a premise may be incorrect is going to weaken and will therefore be one of our four losers.

If I have a series of conditional premises and then a causal conclusion, I am likely going to focus mostly on why the causal conclusion is not proved by those conditional premises. That could look like this:

P: If I eat steak, I also drink red wine
P: Whenever I drink red wine I get a headache
P: If I get a headache I will take aspirin
C: So eating steak causes me to take aspirin

Seems pretty sensible, but if I wanted to weaken it I would use some of my causal tools, like suggesting an alternate cause (like I only ever eat steak in a loud restaurant, and it's the noise that leads to the headache and the aspirin rather than the steak). I would be much less likely to address the premises, but I could. What if it turns out that I also drink wine when I do not eat steak? Then maybe the wine, and not the steak, is the culprit?

I hope that helps!

[lsacgals101]

Hi,
For those of us with different PowerScore Bible editions who are interested in studying this question ("All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby ..."), could somebody please post the entire stimulus rather than just the first few lines of it? It's difficult to follow along / benefit fully from this discussion without it.

Thanks!

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi,
For those of us with different PowerScore Bible editions who are interested in studying this question ("All nations that place a high tax on income produce thereby ..."), could somebody please post the entire stimulus rather than just the first few lines of it? It's difficult to follow along / benefit fully from this discussion without it.

Thanks!

Hi lsacgals101,

Thanks for the post! Unfortunately, posting the entire stimulus violates LSAC copyright violations, so we can't do that.
However, I'd be happy to help you find this question in your Bible! Which edition are you using?

Thanks!

[lsacgals101]

I understand completely! I am using the 2019 edition !

[Dave Killoran]

I understand completely! I am using the 2019 edition !

That's on page 267!