How do I know when a Method of Reasoning stimulus contains causal reasoning?

[kupwarriors9]

Hi,

How do I know when a MR stimulus contains causal reasoning? For example, on page 496 (question 2 Halley's comet), the answer states that the reasoning used was basic casual reasoning - how do I identify that on my own? Also, it seems the solution has cause and effect. How do you know when it's cause and effect vs. basic casual reasoning vs. conditional reasoning.

Thanks,
KW9

[atierney]

Hi,

On the LSAT, when you see a causal reasoning, it's really the same as Cause and Effect, in that when you employ causal reasoning, you positing (or attempting to posit) a causal relationship between a given Cause and an Effect. Now, sometimes, this is rather simple and basic, i.e. my hunger might cause me to eat a sandwich, or the rain was the cause of me getting wet. But notice even in the latter case, me standing outside in the rain, was also a cause of me getting wet. Causality can get quite messy, quite quickly, and this is especially if you are attempting to posit the causal relationship of something much more complex, like WWII for instance.

Suffice it to say, the PowerScore resources do an outstanding of providing the overview and relevant points with respect to causality, and you can apply these points any time you notice a causal relationship being put forth or argued over. Note that this will be distinct from conditional relationships, which presume an already existing connection between the necessary and sufficient conditions. Causality, where conditionality is not stated, is often seen in the context of attempting to establish such a connection between a Cause and its observed Effect.

Thus, where, as in the question at hand, you see an argument between two individuals, you can be sure that the causal connection/relationship is being put forth, but not taken as established as would be the case in statements of conditionality. Specifically, Anne says that because we're seeing something that we've never seen before, what we're seeing is probably rare. The causal relationship here is that the rarity of the event is the Cause of us never seeing the event before, the Effect. The difficulty here is that this sounds like a logical argument, premise one being we've had no evidence of this, and the conclusion being this is rare; however, it's not a statement of conditionality (if we've never seen something before, it must be rare), and, to the extent this is not clear, it becomes clear in the context of the question, Sue denies that Anne is right about this! And this is how we know the argument is not one of conditionality, where the conditional element is presumed true, but one where the causal relationship is being contested.

The key takeaway here is look for whether the causal relationship is presumed true, or whether there is an attempt by the speaker to establish it. Where it's the latter case, the question will be one of causality.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.