so if we don't know that something is happening for a fact, does that mean that causation logic doesn't apply to it?
considering the causation logic describes the relationship between two phenomena.
Example:
conclusion: Driver's seat position may affect safety.
premises: the seat position can be uncomfortable which causes distractions to the drivers which reduces safety.
the premises demonstrate causal logic but are the premises able to provide an explanation for the conclusion given that the conclusion isn't exactly a phenomenon?
p.s. I'm coming back here from PA LR question and this question came up.
before LSAT, I thought a phenomenon is like, ET, Aurora Borealis, JY, etc...never thought in a million years it'd be a fact or event, and now that I'm 7sage-washed, can't figure out how I ever thought a phenomenon ISN'T a fact/event. In a game of 'word association', you say phenomenon, I'd say: Hypothesis
So the mechanics of causation is the relationship between two phenomena, one of which will be the "cause" and the other the "effect." But what exactly is in need of the explaination/hypothsis? is it the phenomna? the "cause" and "effect"? causation itself?
Also, woudln't the correct explaination/hypotheiss be causation itself? so can we say the explaination is causation itself?
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
21 comments
hit it like rompompompom!
if i came back home to my trash can knocked over i would assume it was probably the fat cat from earlier lessons
i can't not read this as femininomenon
so if we don't know that something is happening for a fact, does that mean that causation logic doesn't apply to it?
considering the causation logic describes the relationship between two phenomena.
Example:
conclusion: Driver's seat position may affect safety.
premises: the seat position can be uncomfortable which causes distractions to the drivers which reduces safety.
the premises demonstrate causal logic but are the premises able to provide an explanation for the conclusion given that the conclusion isn't exactly a phenomenon?
p.s. I'm coming back here from PA LR question and this question came up.
poor dolphins
before LSAT, I thought a phenomenon is like, ET, Aurora Borealis, JY, etc...never thought in a million years it'd be a fact or event, and now that I'm 7sage-washed, can't figure out how I ever thought a phenomenon ISN'T a fact/event. In a game of 'word association', you say phenomenon, I'd say: Hypothesis
#help
So the mechanics of causation is the relationship between two phenomena, one of which will be the "cause" and the other the "effect." But what exactly is in need of the explaination/hypothsis? is it the phenomna? the "cause" and "effect"? causation itself?
Also, woudln't the correct explaination/hypotheiss be causation itself? so can we say the explaination is causation itself?