Subscription pricing
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/
When you encounter the word "contributes" on the LSAT, do you take this to be a "causation" word? For example, if I tell you that "high cholesterol contributes to heart disease". Would you say that high cholesterol is a cause of heart disease? I always have assumed so, but PT 47, S3, Q19 threw me off by equating "contributes" (which I thought implies causation) to "is associated with" (which I thought implies mere correlation).
The word "is associated with" was on the stimulus, and the word "contributes" was in the correct answer (C). I did not choose this answer because I thought that I would be making an assumption from correlation to causation by picking it.
0
3 comments
Thank you both, I think I equated "evidence" with "it's proven that"
Hi,
As answer choice C states, the stimulus is providing *evidence* that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease. This evidence is provided in form of a correlation: High cholesterol levels are associated with the development of heart disease. While as we know, a correlation is not sufficient on it's own to imply causation, it can provide evidence toward causation. Answer choice C does not imply that causation does in fact exist, it merely affirms that there is evidence towards that relationship from the association of the two (correlation).
From dictionary.com:
"contribute to: to be an important factor in; help to cause: A sudden downpour contributed to the traffic jam."
So by the first def, "to be an important factor in" is consistent with "associated with the development of" that's found in the first sentence of the stimulus.