PAge 203 Causality

[voodoochild]

Instructors,

I was reading through the PB book again just to make sure that I am okay with basics esp. with causal reasoning/non-causal reasoning and "the only" factor mentioned on page 203


Question :- Let's say the argument is:

Despite his prevention techniques, the engineer couldn't save the faulty car engine from misfiring. It must be because the engineer mustn't have done the testing well.

Now, in LSAT world, I know that when the author says that X causes Y, then that's the only cause. In the above example, is it safe to assume that the author is assuming the lack of testing as the only cause?

Just curious.


Thanks
Voodoo Child

[Nikki Siclunov]

This is correct. The conclusion is trying to explain why the engineer couldn't save the faulty car engine from misfiring. The author attributes this failure to the engineer's incompetence:

Poor testing (Cause) Didn't save engine (Effect)

You don't need a causal indicator because of the inherent explanatory function of the conclusion.

[obs23]

Hi I was just wondering. In case of causality is it okay to use contrapositives as with conditional reasoning?

So in the example above: Poor testing (Cause) Didn't save engine (Effect) would it be correct to say ~Didn't save engine (Effect) ~Poor testing (Cause)?

And generally speaking, I feel that, having read the chapter from LR bible, there are fewer ways to "play" causality than there are for conditional reasoning, and hence I am not particularly sure if I need to diagram it at all (while in CR I feel it is very helpful) am I missing something?

Are there other good discussions on the difference between the two? Please provide the links.

Hope I have not overloaded with those questions. Thanks in advance.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Obs,

Thanks for the questions, and you haven't overloaded at all

You are right--there are fewer ways to play causality than conditionality (or, at least, the test makers play with it less, notably by avoiding long chains and compound statements).

Whether you diagram is a personal choice: if you feel it clarifies the situation, then diagram. But, if you feel like you have it under control without a diagram, then there's no need to write it down. The same goes for conditionality. For me, I tend to rarely diagram causality and rarely diagram basic conditional statements. I usually diagram when I sense that the question is getting into multiple variables and they are connected in a complex fashion (that is, not in a simple A B relationship).

When we get to the idea of contrapositives with conditionality, I think it can be very confusing to apply that language to causality. In the real world, a so-called contrapositive of a causal statement wouldn't hold at all. On the test, however, an LSAT speaker would believe that if the effect doesn't occur, then the cause doesn't occur (assuming that they are claiming A causes B, and not refuting it). Note, however, that something like a Mistaken Negation would also be valid in causality (no cause, then no effect). That point--and the difference between conditional and causal reasoning--is very tricky, and that's why you won't see me use conditional descriptors in causal discussions.

The LRB provides a discussion of the difference of the two types of reasoning, but the issue comes up frequently on the board too. Is there a specific point I could address for you in further detail? Just let me know

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[obs23]

Thanks much for response. all of the above makes sense. I mean I am generally looking for ways to diagram every single sentence I guess the trouble is that after I read a chapter on the bible, I usually do 5/6 correct from at the end of the chapter problems. But when I go to practice, I still make those same mistakes. And I feel I can't quite diagram everything, not to mention separate "not important premises" from the ones that make a difference. Bottom line: I do end of the chapter ok, but when I practice it seems I can't precisely apply everything well or the diagramming mathematics does not function as well it should, if you know what I mean.

With regards to specific questions, I do not have any at the moment, however I wanted to read some of the discussions to perhaps come up with some Are there any discussions, out of those "lots of them on this board" that particularly stick out? I do not want to be redundant in any way.

Thanks, again.

[Dave Killoran]

My first thought is: in LR you don't want to diagram every single sentence; only diagram when you need to, and that should be occasionally, not frequently.

In answer to the first paragraph, I'd note that when you do a chapter, you know what is coming at the end of the chapter, which gives you an advantage. But, when you do practice on sections or tests, that advantage is removed. So, it's not that the techniques aren't working as well, it's that it's harder to know when to apply them. But, this is the exact benefit of practice: you get to study questions and see what you should have done, so that the next time you can do it more quickly and precisely. So, what you are experiencing is normal, and it will slowly go away the more questions you do and the more you study each of those questions.

As for interesting discussions, there's a search tool on the board, and I'd recommend using that, and also looking through my posts (I have over 600, so I've talked a lot about causality and conditionality over the years, often incidentally in the course of answering questions that revolve around those concepts). A few notable threads include:

http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=1040
http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... =19&t=2401
http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... =12&t=2312
http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... f=7&t=2643
http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... ?f=13&t=95

You should also check out our blog at http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/ as we address LSAT issues there regularly.

I hope that helps. Thanks!