#23 - Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those one

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ali,

Be a little careful with the Logical Reasoning Bible's insight about sole causes. That only applies to a causal conclusion stated in unqualified terms. In other words, if in the course of making an argument, I reach a conclusion that "A causes B," I'm assuming that all other causes of B have been ruled out. In that case, any alternative cause of B would weaken my reasoning, and my conclusion. When a causal relationship (or near-causal relationship) is stated in the premises of the argument, the "normal rules" of causality apply. There might be other causes of the stated effect.

So to reiterate, be careful to apply the Bible's "sole cause" rule only to a causal claim in the conclusion of the argument (and then only when the conclusion makes a definite (certain) statement that one thing causes another).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ali124]

Thank you! This cleared things up!

[brett1114b]

I avoided classifying this as a conditional flaw b/c of the following advice:

"Beware: LSAT often writes sentences that SOUND like conditional logic but ARE NOT! Remember that if the author says that something "can/may/could/perhaps/even if/possibility" then there is NO conditional logic is present. This is because saying that something "may" happen does NOT indicate sufficiency and/or necessity."

Do you agree with the above statement? If so, can you clarify how it fits in with this question?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Brett,

The issue here is the strength of the language in the stimulus is different than the examples you gave. The author here doesn't use words of possibility (may/could/possibly), but strong language of "almost invariably." The language is not quite as strong as require/must/need, but is very very close, and creates that conditional relationship.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[JocelynL]

Mr. Adam Tyson,

I have a question regarding your causality explanation for this question. If the two premises are showing a near causality ("almost invariably"), then wouldn't the stimulus's conclusion be a valid one?

To explain further:

Premise 1: Compare oneself to someone better (cause) self-disparagement (effect)
Premise 2: Compare oneself to someone inferior (cause) dismissive of others (effect)

Since we know that causality in the LSAT means the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect, if cause doesn't exist, the effect will also not exist. And causality in the premise cannot be disputed, according to Powerscore Bible.

If the above were true, by extension: if we remove the cause (one doesn't compare oneself to someone better AND doesn't compare oneself to someone inferior), we would also remove the effect (one would not be disparaging of oneself or others). Is this incorrect?

This logic contradicts answer choice (D) however, and I would appreciate your clarification.

Thank you so much!

Hello,
I had the same thought process as the post above. I know Jeremy Press replied with an explanation but I didn't fully understand it.

The reasoning in the argument seemed logical because the author removed the cause and removed the effect. D would weaken the argument. I'm having a hard time seeing it as a flaw based on the rules of causality. I know weaken and flaw are somewhat related, but I feel as if with D we're adding additional information to create a flaw (hope that makes sense)

thanks,

[Adam Tyson]

While we typically treat causal claims on the LSAT as if they are absolute claims (so when an author says A causes B, they mean that A always causes B and nothing else causes B), that doesn't mean that we are required to agree with them. In fact, it's that absolutist mindset that is the source of most causal flaws. If the author here had made absolute causal claims and drew an absolute "where the cause is absent, the effect is absent" conclusion, we could still say their conclusion was wrong because they failed to consider alternate causes. Understanding the author's position is not the same as accepting that they are correct! This argument is flawed because the absence of a cause doesn't guarantee the absence of an effect.

[sdb606]

I'm still having trouble eliminating E. I'd feel better about E being wrong if the stimulus had said, "So, those who for the most part refrain from comparing themselves to others either more or less skilled than them will most likely be, on the whole, self-accepting and accepting of others."

It seems to draw too strong of a conclusion by ignoring comparisons with people equal in ability. What if the lack of comparing oneself to people equal in ability causes feelings of self-disparagement or dismissiveness? Then the author wouldn't be able to say not comparing oneself causes feelings of self-acceptance because he's not accounting for other factors like comparisons with people equal in ability.

[ArizonaRobin]

I'm still having trouble eliminating E. I'd feel better about E being wrong if the stimulus had said, "So, those who for the most part refrain from comparing themselves to others either more or less skilled than them will most likely be, on the whole, self-accepting and accepting of others."

It seems to draw too strong of a conclusion by ignoring comparisons with people equal in ability. What if the lack of comparing oneself to people equal in ability causes feelings of self-disparagement or dismissiveness? Then the author wouldn't be able to say not comparing oneself causes feelings of self-acceptance because he's not accounting for other factors like comparisons with people equal in ability.

Hi. I selected this attractive wrong answer as well, but after studying it I see it a little differently. I agree with you 100% that the stimulus does not address the comparing of oneself to others that appear to be one's equal. However, there's not enough support in the stimulus to show that if the author took into account comparing oneself to one's equal, it would change the outcome of the conclusion. Your "what if" statement shows that you are having to read into the answer choice to give an example of why it *could* be correct. That is not the best way to approach these, but it is something I also find myself doing at times on tough questions such as this one.

In your argument for E, you actually proved why answer D is the superior answer. You offered another example of something that could cause feelings of self-disparagement or dismissiveness. You are correct that the author's focus is very narrow and doesn't take other causes into consideration. That is the flaw. There could be a myriad of other things that could cause feelings of self-disparagement or dismissiveness of others. Answer D addresses this directly and that is why it is the superior answer.

After having been zapped by the LSAT many times for missing small nuances in language, I can be obsessive about looking at the details. However, that is not always the best way of approaching these. The LSAT also tests our ability to take a "bird's eye view" and look at argument structure or general argumentation techniques. That is what is happening here as we are required to look at the causality and not as much at the nuances of the word meanings in the stimulus. In that case, the author states that comparing oneself to others leads to (or causes) A or B, so not comparing helps you to avoid those things. The gap is that there could be other things that cause A or B. Answer choice D directly addresses that gap.

I hope this was helpful to you.