Is there always only one cause for a given effect?

[cinnamonpeeler]

Hello,

First day on this forum!

I am confused about the part of the LRB about the central assumption of causal conclusions on the LSAT. Specifically, that when the LSAT speaker makes a causal claim, she is assuming that the stated cause is the only possible cause of that effect. So, if Preservative X is said to cause cancer, am I to understand whenever there is Preservative X, there is cancer? Moreover, Preservative X is the only possible thing that can lead to cancer (in the LSAT world of this particular question)?

My question stems from a particular problem in PT24, where the causal connection is that supernovas cause neutron stars, and the answer choice (E) tells us that the effect (neutron stars) occur without the cause (supernovas). This is, according to the LRB, one of the ways to weaken a causal argument, yet (E) is wrong [the conclusion there is to show that the cause does not lead to the effect, so weakening the original causal argument would strengthen that particular conclusion.] Link here: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... 545&t=4694

But I post this question in this general section because it is a general question I have.

Am I correct in understanding that (1) what was mentioned in the LRB, that only the stated cause X could lead to the stated effect Y is true only for causal claims made in conclusions, (2) that there are some possibilities where the author might explicitly tell us that there are multiple potential causes, or that a stated cause is only one factor leading to an effect? (I'm thinking of the "birth weights" problem in PT71. Link here: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6739)

Am I missing something?

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, cinnamonpeeler, and one that leads to some important clarifications! When an author makes a clear, unequivocal causal conclusion - X and Y are correlated, therefore X causes Y" - we can treat that author as if they believe there is just a single cause involved and that it will always have that effect. We can react to the argument as if they thing X always causes Y and that nothing other than X causes Y. That's what allows us to weaken their argument by suggesting an alternate cause.

But when the author hedges their bets in their conclusion by using words like "tends to" and "contributes to" and "is one of the causes," then we cannot use that approach, because they have already allowed for the possibility of other causal elements. In those cases, we have to look more to things like problems with their data. In the case of that question from PT 71, "depends to a large extent" is just that sort of hedging language.

And then there are the cases like the example you cited from PT 51. There, the author is arguing against a cause ALWAYS having an effect, but isn't saying that the cause NEVER has the effect or that something else must sometimes be the cause. Another way to look at that conclusion is "sometimes that cause doesn't have that effect." This is another case where the causal claim is not absolute, and so the standard approaches don't apply. This author would be fine with other things also causing neutron stars, and also with some supernovas causing them and others not doing so. What we need to strengthen is something other than the causal claim - we need to strengthen the relationship of the evidence to the conclusion. We need to support the data that got us there.

That absolutist mindset, where the author must believe in one and only one perfect cause, is reserved for those simple causal arguments where the author is trying to claim a causal relationship exists based only on a correlation, and where they do nothing to lessen their degree of certainty. There are plenty of those on the test, so that approach is very useful, but when the argument strays from that simple structure we have to be more flexible in our analysis to account for their flexible argument.

I hope that clears things up!

[cleocleozuo]

Thank you for your explantion! I am not sure if my following thoughts about causation are right, could you let me know if I misunderstand any important concepts?
I think causation is just a loose relationship between things. If A cause B, it doesn't mean only A cause B or B can only be caused by A. It just means that A has some influence/impact on B, and B can be influenced by many things. Thus, unless it is stated as a fact in a premise, it is very difficult to prove or disprove a causal relationship in a conclusion. But it can be weakened or strengthened by eliminating/presenting other factors or using other methods... And because it is just a loose relationship, it is different from conditional and never guarantees anything. So tools that help to tackle conditional logic questions should not be used here. Does it sound right?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi cleocleozuo!

Your thinking is on the right track but I want to make sure a few things are clear:

1.) You're absolutely correct that you cannot use Conditional Reasoning thinking with Causal Reasoning arguments. Mistaken Reversals, Mistaken Negations, and Contrapositives do not apply.

2.) Conditional statements are very absolute relationships which tell you that the sufficient condition indicates the necessary condition occurred and that without the necessary condition, you cannot have the sufficient condition. In this way, causal reasoning can be seen as somewhat "looser" than conditional arguments. But causal relationships are their own very specific type of relationship in which the cause actively makes the effect happen. There must also be a temporal relationship in which the cause must happen before the effect.

3.) Though causal relationships are not inherently as strictly absolute as conditional relationships, many causal arguments on the test can be treated with the "absolutist mindset," as Adam described in his post above. For these simpler causal arguments, it is useful to interpret the author's conclusion as stating that the cause and effect always go together because it makes it easier to conceptualize answer choices that would weaken or strengthen that more absolute causal statement. But when authors make more nuanced causal arguments (using the hedging language Adam describes), then we can no longer view them in the simpler, absolute way. That's when you can use your thinking that "If A causes B, it doesn't mean only A causes B or B can only be caused by A. It just means that A has some influence/impact on B, and B can be influenced by many things."

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[cleocleozuo]

Thank you, that helps a lot!