Conditionality and Causality Confirmation

[dabaum471]

Hi! I'm almost 10 days out of the December LSAT (my first one!) and I want to make sure I have a solid understanding of the two most common types of reasoning we've gone over (conditional and causal). Can somebody--preferably and LSAT expert--let me know if I'm on the right track? (I just typed these explanations out about five minutes ago.) Thanks!

"Conditional Reasoning describes an absolute relationship between two events. The sufficient condition is ENOUGH for the necessary condition to occur; in other words, when the sufficient condition occurs, the necessary condition occurs. However, when the necessary condition occurs, the sufficient condition MIGHT occur or might not—we don’t know. We know the necessary condition is REQUIRED for the sufficient condition to occur.
Errors of reasoning include the most common Mistaken Reversal when the necessary condition is switched with the sufficient condition claiming that the necessary condition is enough to guarantee the sufficient condition’s occurrence. Mistaken Negation is when a statement claims that if the sufficient condition doesn’t occur, then the necessary condition will not occur either. The only true logical statement we know is the contrapositive; which occurs when the conditions are flipped and both negated. NOTE: when a condition is flipped and negated (hence its contrapositive is taken), the “and” switches to “or” and vice versa. The most effective way to weaken a conditional relationship is to show that when the sufficient condition occurs, the necessary condition doesn’t automatically follow.
NOTE: whatever necessary indicators of unless, without, except, until is describing ends up becoming the necessary and the remaining indictor is NEGATED and becomes the sufficient.
------
Casual Reasoning is inherently flawed on this test. The claim of an LSAT author is that X event CAUSED Y event and ONLY X event caused it EVERY SINGLE TIME. The author is presumed to have tested every other possible cause for EVENT Y but is 100% SURE it is EVENT X. The most effective way to weaken a causal relationship is to introduce an outside cause for this given effect. Other ways to weaken include showing that there could be a third, confounding variable that was the true cause for both events to occur; showing that the relationship is in fact reversed; the data is off; and the effect happens but the cause doesn’t; and when the cause happens, the effect doesn't."

[Dave Killoran]

Hi D,

Yes, you are on the right track! What you've written out here is what I think of the basic kernel behind these ideas, and the goal from here is to see it fluidly and in movement (like the Neo sees the Matrix, to make a throwback reference). In other words, these ideas are ones you want to know so well you stop thinking about them and simply start using them (like you would a fork, or the accelerator pedal when you drive). Make it second nature!

This general topic has also come up quite a bit on the forum, so I'll refer you to a post a made just last week on conditional reasoning that you might find interesting: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=15899&p=41646#p41646.

Thanks!

[24hdasfo]

A few months ago I purchased your tutorial package. One question I forgot to ask my tutor regarding the Conditional Equation is when to apply the "Unless Equation". On page 175 in the Logical Reasoning Bible the example is clear. However, in the Conditional Linkage example on page 193 problem #4 where the conditional indicator "without" is part of the second sentence of the stimulus, it does not appear that the "Unless Equation" principle is applied. Do you apply the "Unless Equation" to indicators within Conditional Linkage problem sets?

Thank you,

Harry

[Adam Tyson]

You bet we do, Harry! I have an older version of that book than you do, but I believe you are talking about the stimulus about the angle of tilt of a planet's axis, right? It is, in my copy, diagrammed using the "Unless Equation" - the word "without" in the stimulus is attached to the concept of "stable angle" (which we abbreviated in our example as "AS" for "angle stable"). That is the necessary condition, and the claim about the planet's climate being too extreme is negated and becomes PCE (the planet's climate is NOT too extreme) in that example.

If your copy shows it differently, let us know! Otherwise, take another look and break it down step by step, as we did in that example, and you should see the Unless Equation being used in all its glory.

Thanks for the follow-up question! Keep up the good work!