- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Jun 26, 2013
- Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:43 am
#84584
Hi Jocelyn!
You are correct that a correlation does not prove causation. But a correlation does provide evidence of causation. A correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease doesn't definitively prove that high cholesterol causes heart disease, but it does offer some support for a causal link.
Now look at the wording of answer choice (C) again: "It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease."
Answer choice (C) doesn't say that the argument proves that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. It just says that it presents evidence that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. And a correlation is evidence even if it isn't proof.
The important thing to remember about causal reasoning is that it's very difficult to definitively prove causal relationships but that doesn't mean we can't still provide evidence that supports them. And just as it can be difficult to definitively prove a causal relationship, it can also be difficult to definitively disprove a causal relationship. As the first sentence in this stimulus notes, even though there's a correlation that between high cholesterol and heart disease, many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease and many people without high cholesterol do develop heart disease. These are some of our classic ways of weakening causal arguments--we've got the cause without the effect and the effect without the cause. But weakening an argument is not the same as disproving an argument. Even though we have evidence that high cholesterol does not always cause heart disease and heart disease is not always caused by high cholesterol, that doesn't necessarily prove that high cholesterol does not sometimes cause heart disease and that heart disease is not sometimes caused by high cholesterol. Flawed causal reasoning occurs when authors try to prove or disprove causal relationships definitively. But it's acceptable to conclude that there is evidence for or against a causal relationship.
So the first sentence offers evidence that for some, but not all people, high cholesterol might be a contributing factor to heart disease because of the correlation between them (also, notice that "contribute to" does not mean that it's the sole cause, just one potential cause). But then the author draws a conclusion that there is "no reason" to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease, even though the correlation does provide at least some sort of reason to make dietary changes. That's the flaw that answer choice (C) describes.
Hope this helps!
Best,
Kelsey
You are correct that a correlation does not prove causation. But a correlation does provide evidence of causation. A correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease doesn't definitively prove that high cholesterol causes heart disease, but it does offer some support for a causal link.
Now look at the wording of answer choice (C) again: "It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease."
Answer choice (C) doesn't say that the argument proves that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. It just says that it presents evidence that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. And a correlation is evidence even if it isn't proof.
The important thing to remember about causal reasoning is that it's very difficult to definitively prove causal relationships but that doesn't mean we can't still provide evidence that supports them. And just as it can be difficult to definitively prove a causal relationship, it can also be difficult to definitively disprove a causal relationship. As the first sentence in this stimulus notes, even though there's a correlation that between high cholesterol and heart disease, many people with high cholesterol never develop heart disease and many people without high cholesterol do develop heart disease. These are some of our classic ways of weakening causal arguments--we've got the cause without the effect and the effect without the cause. But weakening an argument is not the same as disproving an argument. Even though we have evidence that high cholesterol does not always cause heart disease and heart disease is not always caused by high cholesterol, that doesn't necessarily prove that high cholesterol does not sometimes cause heart disease and that heart disease is not sometimes caused by high cholesterol. Flawed causal reasoning occurs when authors try to prove or disprove causal relationships definitively. But it's acceptable to conclude that there is evidence for or against a causal relationship.
So the first sentence offers evidence that for some, but not all people, high cholesterol might be a contributing factor to heart disease because of the correlation between them (also, notice that "contribute to" does not mean that it's the sole cause, just one potential cause). But then the author draws a conclusion that there is "no reason" to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease, even though the correlation does provide at least some sort of reason to make dietary changes. That's the flaw that answer choice (C) describes.
Hope this helps!
Best,
Kelsey
