- Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:12 pm
#62038
Hi,
I am a bit confused on your point that causal reasoning and conditional reasoning are entirely separate (Page 302).
Because if the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect, and that if the stated cause will always produce the effect, I think a causal reasoning implies a conditional reasoning.
For instance, for a causal statement that Drinking causes liver cancer, what I understood from Powerscore explanation is:
In the LSAT world, drinking will always cause liver cancer. Thus,
(1) If someone has a liver cancer, that person has drunk alcohol sometime in the past.
(Contrapositive: IF a person has not drunk alcohol anytime in the past, that person will not have a liver cancer.)
(2) If someone drinks alcohol, that person will suffer from liver cancer.
(Contrapositive: If a person does not suffer from liver cancer, that person has not drunk alcohol in the past.)
-> Based on (1) and (2) I think that causal relationship implies drinking
cancer
Of course, there is a difference in that in (1) the necessary condition has caused the sufficient condition, and in (2) vice versa. I am not sure whether this difference is what you meant by them (causual & conditional) being entirely separate.
I would appreciate if you can clarify this confusion, and please correct me if I am mistaken!
Thank you
I am a bit confused on your point that causal reasoning and conditional reasoning are entirely separate (Page 302).
Because if the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect, and that if the stated cause will always produce the effect, I think a causal reasoning implies a conditional reasoning.
For instance, for a causal statement that Drinking causes liver cancer, what I understood from Powerscore explanation is:
In the LSAT world, drinking will always cause liver cancer. Thus,
(1) If someone has a liver cancer, that person has drunk alcohol sometime in the past.
(Contrapositive: IF a person has not drunk alcohol anytime in the past, that person will not have a liver cancer.)
(2) If someone drinks alcohol, that person will suffer from liver cancer.
(Contrapositive: If a person does not suffer from liver cancer, that person has not drunk alcohol in the past.)
-> Based on (1) and (2) I think that causal relationship implies drinking

Of course, there is a difference in that in (1) the necessary condition has caused the sufficient condition, and in (2) vice versa. I am not sure whether this difference is what you meant by them (causual & conditional) being entirely separate.
I would appreciate if you can clarify this confusion, and please correct me if I am mistaken!
Thank you