You don't want to get in the habit of using arrows to express a causal relationship. Arrows are a shorthand that express conditionality.
As for your question: if there is a purported causal relationship in which it is said that A causes B, you can strengthen this causal relationship by showing when A doesn't occur, B doesn't either. This does not prove that a causal relationship in fact exists, but it does strengthen it.
@kennedybj959 For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen.
I'd love to see a citation to this statement in the LR Bible itself. This statement either proves that PowerScore's LR Bible is a piece of garbage or it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic (or of PowerScore's explanation of the logic) on your part.
An example to illustrate the point: If I tell you that falling off my bike caused me to skin my knee, I am most certainly not assuming that falling off my bike is the only way to skin my knee. It also definitely does not imply that if I don't fall off my bike, that I won't ever skin my knee.
I understand you do not teach Powerscore here. But, I just wanted to confirm the concept I mentioned above. Are you saying that answer to my initial question is "Yes"
Thanks for your comments. I am still not clear on this. To strengthen /A -> /B, we can say A -> B. For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen. By using the same logic, if /A causes /B, wouldn't we also have to assume that if /A does not happen, then /B does not happen, which is "A ->B"
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
14 comments
Thanks Jason. I got it. I really appreciate it.
You don't want to get in the habit of using arrows to express a causal relationship. Arrows are a shorthand that express conditionality.
As for your question: if there is a purported causal relationship in which it is said that A causes B, you can strengthen this causal relationship by showing when A doesn't occur, B doesn't either. This does not prove that a causal relationship in fact exists, but it does strengthen it.
Thanks Jonathan, I see your point and it definitely makes sense. Does the fact that /A -> /B strenghthen the statement that A caused B though?
I'm just here to read the comments...
I'd love to see a citation to this statement in the LR Bible itself. This statement either proves that PowerScore's LR Bible is a piece of garbage or it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic (or of PowerScore's explanation of the logic) on your part.
An example to illustrate the point: If I tell you that falling off my bike caused me to skin my knee, I am most certainly not assuming that falling off my bike is the only way to skin my knee. It also definitely does not imply that if I don't fall off my bike, that I won't ever skin my knee.
Lol--more a rhetorical flourish than indication of agreement ;)
You did start with "yeah" hahahha
... Did I say that?
I'll let @kennedybj959.janson35 handle this one.
I understand you do not teach Powerscore here. But, I just wanted to confirm the concept I mentioned above. Are you saying that answer to my initial question is "Yes"
Yeah we don't really "do" Powerscore around here. Are you talking about, like, showing the effect without the cause or something like that?
Thanks for your comments. I am still not clear on this. To strengthen /A -> /B, we can say A -> B. For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen. By using the same logic, if /A causes /B, wouldn't we also have to assume that if /A does not happen, then /B does not happen, which is "A ->B"
You're confusing conditionality with causation which is a big no go. I'd revisit lessons on both before moving forward.
"/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B
No—if you're given /A -> /B, that means you're given B -> A. And To say A -> B from B -> A would be to reverse sufficient and necessary. Big no-no.
We don't know that A causes B based merely on the fact that not doing A causes something that is not B.