#feedback yes I agree they where so short not explaining where this applies on the LSAT!!!! But I found this explanation somewhere else not on 7sage....
I also provided a visual chain that helped me! Just notes if someone is as confused as I am...
🧭 LSAT Question Types Where This Appears
Strengthen - Is the hypothesis a good explanation?
You Add evidence that supports the causal link or mechanism
Weaken- Is there a better or different cause?
You Propose an alternative explanation or show the mechanism is false
Flaw- Did they assume one cause explains everything?
Spot the jump from phenomenon → single cause (ignoring alternatives)
Resolve/Explain- Which answer best explains the mystery?You Pick the hypothesis that best fits the phenomenon
@CeciliaBurton1 I think it's natural that this feels intuitive, we've been basically doing this our whole life! If you do poorly on a test, you may first consider a couple alternative hypotheses (you didn't sleep enough, you forgot to study, you blanked out). Say the cause was that you didn't sleep enough --> poorly on test. How does poor sleep affect your test-taking kills? You're more fatigued, less alert, etc. This feels intuitive because this is just explaining what people do every day, just a bit more particular about words like "some"
Causal arguments claim that one thing causes another (e.g., smoking causes lung cancer). Validity means the conclusion must follow from the premises, but causal arguments aren't valid since they deal with probability (or likelihood), not certainty. So for those, you look at how strong or weak the evidence is for the cause-and-effect relationship.
Strong causal argument: Good evidence supporting the cause.
Weak causal argument: Insufficient evidence or counterexamples.
So just to make sure I'm correct: In order to find the strongest hypothesis, we just ask 'how'? I feel like that might be intuitive if we had more than a minute and a half per question... Someone clear it up for me please!
My questions might sound a little be stupid, but I wanna get it off the table. Is every hypothesis a good hypothesis? The reason why I'am asking this, is that we can nearly fidn alternative hypothesis for every argument, how to understand which one is more strong to support the argument?
Per the previous lessons on causation, the hypothesis needs to be testable. Furthermore, by eliminating potential alternate causes makes the initial hypothesis stronger. So, no, not every hypothesis is a good one.
Great lesson, my only #feedback I'd give is in regards to the formatting. Maybe experiment with singling out examples so information is easier to recall/look back to while reading initially.
I'll use an example :
For example, let's say that you observed that eight out of the top ten winners of the Boston Marathon trained in the Himalayas. Naturally, you wonder "why?" Here's a hypothesis: high altitude training causes elite runners to run faster and farther at sea level. That's a causal story. That's a potential explanation.
Turns into:
For example, let's say that you observed that eight out of the top ten winners of the Boston Marathon trained in the Himalayas. Naturally, you wonder "why?" Here's a hypothesis:
High altitude training causes elite runners to run faster and farther at sea level.
That's a causal story. That's a potential explanation.
Not necessarily. I can imagine two scenarios in which identifying "causal mechanism" may not entirely be needed to qualify a hypothesis as strong or weak.
1) Strong hypothesis because of sufficient evidence. Suppose a study found a strong correlation between high sugar intake and increased risk of diabetes. The argument claims that high sugar intake causes an increased risk of diabetes. Even though the exact causal mechanism isn't provided (i.e., how sugar leads to diabetes on a molecular level), the argument is strong because it is supported by a robust scientific study.
So when hunting in the answer choices (let's say for strengthening questions), it is useful to predict that the correct answer choice might provide the causal mechanism which was missing from the premise. If you have taken this lesson, then that might be pretty easy. But I could imagine the LSAT creating curveball questions that won't give you anything to indicate a causal mechanism. Instead, they will test your ability to identify relevant information, evidences, and reasonable assumptions that will still make an argument stronger and makes a certain hypothesis/explanation more likely.
2) Hypotheiss can still be strong without a causal mechanism when we eliminate alternative hypothesis/explanations. Let's say an argument asserts that a certain pesticide causes a decline in bee populations. The evidence shows that whenever the pesticide is used, bee populations decline in the surrounding area. Additionally, other potential causes, such as disease or loss of habitat, were ruled out. Even without the exact causal mechanism, the argument is strong because it has eliminated alternative explanations.
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.
28 comments
The poor dolphins
It would be really helpful to see an actual test example with answers to see how to apply this on the actual test
@PaulinaBaczkowski
#feedback yes I agree they where so short not explaining where this applies on the LSAT!!!! But I found this explanation somewhere else not on 7sage....
I also provided a visual chain that helped me! Just notes if someone is as confused as I am...
🧭 LSAT Question Types Where This Appears
Strengthen - Is the hypothesis a good explanation?
You Add evidence that supports the causal link or mechanism
Weaken- Is there a better or different cause?
You Propose an alternative explanation or show the mechanism is false
Flaw- Did they assume one cause explains everything?
Spot the jump from phenomenon → single cause (ignoring alternatives)
Resolve/Explain- Which answer best explains the mystery?You Pick the hypothesis that best fits the phenomenon
Causal Reasoning Framework (for LSAT)
[Observation / Phenomenon]
↓
Something happened
[Hypothesis / Explanation]
↓
Because of __
↓
[Causal Mechanism]
↓
The “how” — steps linking cause to effect
@Liliana_Levy this is super helpful
does this feel really intuitive to anyone else, or I am I being naive?
@CeciliaBurton1 I think it's natural that this feels intuitive, we've been basically doing this our whole life! If you do poorly on a test, you may first consider a couple alternative hypotheses (you didn't sleep enough, you forgot to study, you blanked out). Say the cause was that you didn't sleep enough --> poorly on test. How does poor sleep affect your test-taking kills? You're more fatigued, less alert, etc. This feels intuitive because this is just explaining what people do every day, just a bit more particular about words like "some"
#feedback should have a practice drill here
I really wish these lesson videos used a standard font instead of handwriting. Its very hard to read.
@ClaireLacza I agree!
The casual laugh after he says 'lets think back about the dead dolphins'. Savage.
so causal arguments can not be true or valid, JUST strong or weak
Causal arguments claim that one thing causes another (e.g., smoking causes lung cancer). Validity means the conclusion must follow from the premises, but causal arguments aren't valid since they deal with probability (or likelihood), not certainty. So for those, you look at how strong or weak the evidence is for the cause-and-effect relationship.
Strong causal argument: Good evidence supporting the cause.
Weak causal argument: Insufficient evidence or counterexamples.
thank you for this!
Do you come up with the How or ..?
So just to make sure I'm correct: In order to find the strongest hypothesis, we just ask 'how'? I feel like that might be intuitive if we had more than a minute and a half per question... Someone clear it up for me please!
This is just my take, but I think the main idea is that the more of these questions we do, the more we get used to both
a) asking these questions at the right times
b) identifying repeated patterns of similar lsat questions in terms of their structures and what they are looking for
Eventually we'll be so used to doing this that we will be way more efficient and adept at finding the right answer quickly
In a way it is intuitive, but we can always train our intuition to be faster
My questions might sound a little be stupid, but I wanna get it off the table. Is every hypothesis a good hypothesis? The reason why I'am asking this, is that we can nearly fidn alternative hypothesis for every argument, how to understand which one is more strong to support the argument?
Thanks!
barev mesrop jan,
Per the previous lessons on causation, the hypothesis needs to be testable. Furthermore, by eliminating potential alternate causes makes the initial hypothesis stronger. So, no, not every hypothesis is a good one.
liked ur comment for the username lol
Urakhatsa vor hayeris gta :) ! Good luck on the test!
"he defecated through a sun roof"
Chicanery
So if im understanding correctly, " Causal Mechanisms" are assumptions the argument makes about the details of the cause and effect relationship?
personally I like to read to the "lets review" section before I start. Helps me get an understanding before I hop in.
Wow, I'm going to start doing that.
Great lesson, my only #feedback I'd give is in regards to the formatting. Maybe experiment with singling out examples so information is easier to recall/look back to while reading initially.
I'll use an example :
For example, let's say that you observed that eight out of the top ten winners of the Boston Marathon trained in the Himalayas. Naturally, you wonder "why?" Here's a hypothesis: high altitude training causes elite runners to run faster and farther at sea level. That's a causal story. That's a potential explanation.
Turns into:
For example, let's say that you observed that eight out of the top ten winners of the Boston Marathon trained in the Himalayas. Naturally, you wonder "why?" Here's a hypothesis:
High altitude training causes elite runners to run faster and farther at sea level.
That's a causal story. That's a potential explanation.
if we cannot identify a casual mechanism does that mean our original hypothesis is weak? #help
Not necessarily. I can imagine two scenarios in which identifying "causal mechanism" may not entirely be needed to qualify a hypothesis as strong or weak.
1) Strong hypothesis because of sufficient evidence. Suppose a study found a strong correlation between high sugar intake and increased risk of diabetes. The argument claims that high sugar intake causes an increased risk of diabetes. Even though the exact causal mechanism isn't provided (i.e., how sugar leads to diabetes on a molecular level), the argument is strong because it is supported by a robust scientific study.
So when hunting in the answer choices (let's say for strengthening questions), it is useful to predict that the correct answer choice might provide the causal mechanism which was missing from the premise. If you have taken this lesson, then that might be pretty easy. But I could imagine the LSAT creating curveball questions that won't give you anything to indicate a causal mechanism. Instead, they will test your ability to identify relevant information, evidences, and reasonable assumptions that will still make an argument stronger and makes a certain hypothesis/explanation more likely.
2) Hypotheiss can still be strong without a causal mechanism when we eliminate alternative hypothesis/explanations. Let's say an argument asserts that a certain pesticide causes a decline in bee populations. The evidence shows that whenever the pesticide is used, bee populations decline in the surrounding area. Additionally, other potential causes, such as disease or loss of habitat, were ruled out. Even without the exact causal mechanism, the argument is strong because it has eliminated alternative explanations.