If formal arguments are evaluated for validity (if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true), and informal arguments aren't capable of validity, but can be evaluated for their strength, does this mean that "must be true" questions on the LSAT will always be dealing with formal arguments and questions asking us to evaluate the strength of the argument will deal with informal?
Conditional Statements: SC indicates NC occurs, but doesn't cause it to occur. NC and SC can occur in any order meaning NC can occur first or SC can occur first.
Causal Statements: causes make an Effect happen. Cause occurs first, then effect occurs.
#help I don't understand how causal arguments are never valid. I went forward a few lessons and it started talking about phenomena and the arguments, but how are they invalid? Also, couldn't causal logic be transformed to an if, then argument? #feedback
The premises may be true but they do not 100% guarantee or cause the outcome argued. There is a small or big gap that cannot be closed within the scope of the argument presented.
first of all, I don't know anyone in my life that'd make me happier than a 180..but causal logic means that I might be dressed up enough (aka not a weak argument) to get into Jean-Georges, but it is not dressed up enough to guarantee entrance to the opening night at the metropolitan opera.
I know this sounds dumb -- but for the sake of even more clarity, can you give a definition of cause? You use the word in parenthesis, but it would be better if there was an established common understanding of the concept the "cause" is referring to.
Just like the other commenter said, this is definitely not a dumb question! Even those that conduct research still have trouble recognizing a causal relationship. The basic definition of "cause" is a thing being present that results in some sort of effect. The relationship between cause and effect is to demonstrate that if that thing is present or not, does the same effect still occur. A lot of the times you'll be given either the cause or the effect and be asked to determine if the information provided is strong enough to conclude it.
Hi! Not a dumb question. All this LSAT practice causes seemingly familiar words and phrases to turn into puzzles of language.
A definition of a cause is something that triggers something else to happen. So if you're angry, what caused that? Did you stub your toe, or have a bad day, or not get enough sleep? Those are all causes.
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.
24 comments
If formal arguments are evaluated for validity (if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true), and informal arguments aren't capable of validity, but can be evaluated for their strength, does this mean that "must be true" questions on the LSAT will always be dealing with formal arguments and questions asking us to evaluate the strength of the argument will deal with informal?
Oh no, more ambiguity......
Anyone here from the strengthen weaken logical reasoning section -_-
Am I the only one who keeps reading that word as "casual?"
@mattrettig Lmao I am too!
@mattrettig no wonder why i was confused, lol. didnt realised that, until i see ur comment
great analogies thanks!!!
Pretty sure "phenomenon" in in the Let's Review section should be "phenomena."
Phenomena is actually the plural form of phenomenon
Let's see what the hype is all about.
how can one differentiate between a causal argument and conditional statements
Based on my understanding, (I might be wrong)
Conditional Statements: SC indicates NC occurs, but doesn't cause it to occur. NC and SC can occur in any order meaning NC can occur first or SC can occur first.
Causal Statements: causes make an Effect happen. Cause occurs first, then effect occurs.
"A large portion of the arguments you will encounter on the test will use causal logic."
arguments ←s→ casual logic
"What can be done to improve social and economic mobility?"
Answer: The liberation of the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society.
based comrade
#help I don't understand how causal arguments are never valid. I went forward a few lessons and it started talking about phenomena and the arguments, but how are they invalid? Also, couldn't causal logic be transformed to an if, then argument? #feedback
The premises may be true but they do not 100% guarantee or cause the outcome argued. There is a small or big gap that cannot be closed within the scope of the argument presented.
first of all, I don't know anyone in my life that'd make me happier than a 180..but causal logic means that I might be dressed up enough (aka not a weak argument) to get into Jean-Georges, but it is not dressed up enough to guarantee entrance to the opening night at the metropolitan opera.
I dress casually to the bar. My outfit causes people to say "oh la la"
that's seriously wonderful.
I know this sounds dumb -- but for the sake of even more clarity, can you give a definition of cause? You use the word in parenthesis, but it would be better if there was an established common understanding of the concept the "cause" is referring to.
Just like the other commenter said, this is definitely not a dumb question! Even those that conduct research still have trouble recognizing a causal relationship. The basic definition of "cause" is a thing being present that results in some sort of effect. The relationship between cause and effect is to demonstrate that if that thing is present or not, does the same effect still occur. A lot of the times you'll be given either the cause or the effect and be asked to determine if the information provided is strong enough to conclude it.
Hi! Not a dumb question. All this LSAT practice causes seemingly familiar words and phrases to turn into puzzles of language.
A definition of a cause is something that triggers something else to happen. So if you're angry, what caused that? Did you stub your toe, or have a bad day, or not get enough sleep? Those are all causes.
Hope this helps!
This is a very important and clarifying lesson!