Thinking hypercritically, I’m wondering about the impact that the rain has on the causal chain. I understand that if the mining company hadn’t caused the chemical leak, then nothing else on the causal chain would have happened. But heavy rainfall is what CAUSED the chemicals to be washed into the water—something the mining company did not have anything to do with. Couldn’t it be argued that if not for the rain (an outside factor), then the causal chain would be weakened?
Failure to seal > leach into soil
rain
rain > wash into ocean > dolphins poisoned
The leaching of chemicals into the soil did not cause the rain. So isn’t there an interruption here in the complete causal chain from mining company > dolphins dead???
Thinking about this in terms of an answer choice that says something like “no heavy rain had occurred during the time of the event” etc.
I get the idea of chaining concepts, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like the LSAT is far more frequently asking us to think about why chaining causal concepts creates problems so often (especially for WSE and flaw/descriptive weakening questions) in the real world due to the world reflecting - as JY says - "a complex causal model".
For example:
(1) avoiding sweets--c-->improved heart health
(2) improved heart health---c--> improved overall health
-----
Chaining causal claims: (3) avoiding sweets ---c--> improved overall health
But what if avoiding sweets caused the person such stress (and that stress has an even stronger causal relationship to overall health), that their avoidance of sweets caused their health to deteriorate
Or what if avoiding sweets causes them to redirect their only free time to regulating their diet - time they would have otherwise spent exercising - and their lack of exercise causes their health to deteriorate.
It seems to me like the problem is that the conclusion equates/limits sweets consumption to its effects on heart health. However, avoiding sweets has a lot of other characteristics - some of which we can imagine might not improve heart health. To continue the analogy, perhaps avoiding sweets also has the characteristic of causing increased stress and decreasing exercise ( I know it's unlikely but it's just a hypothetical). In other words, there are many theoretically possible causal pathways between sweets consumption and overall health that are overlooked when the causal claims are chained.
Causal claims can be chained together. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. The A-C causal relationship is "indirect" in light of the mediating relationship to B.
A the mining company's failure to properly line their dumping site. CAUSED B-- toxic chemicals to leach into the soil. CAUSED C toxic chemicals to leach into the soil. CAUSED D caused the dolphins to be poisoned.
and then we say that A caused D
so in the chain the how is basically the meet of the argument?
and the first and last can become linked ? #help
5
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.
11 comments
I heard from other LSAT tutors that it's "A contributed to C" and not "A caused C" if the relationship is A-->B and B-->C
A —cause—> B —cause—> C can be shortened to A—cause—> C
A —cause—> B —cause—> C can be shortened to A—cause—> C
Thinking hypercritically, I’m wondering about the impact that the rain has on the causal chain. I understand that if the mining company hadn’t caused the chemical leak, then nothing else on the causal chain would have happened. But heavy rainfall is what CAUSED the chemicals to be washed into the water—something the mining company did not have anything to do with. Couldn’t it be argued that if not for the rain (an outside factor), then the causal chain would be weakened?
Failure to seal > leach into soil
rain
rain > wash into ocean > dolphins poisoned
The leaching of chemicals into the soil did not cause the rain. So isn’t there an interruption here in the complete causal chain from mining company > dolphins dead???
Thinking about this in terms of an answer choice that says something like “no heavy rain had occurred during the time of the event” etc.
I get the idea of chaining concepts, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I feel like the LSAT is far more frequently asking us to think about why chaining causal concepts creates problems so often (especially for WSE and flaw/descriptive weakening questions) in the real world due to the world reflecting - as JY says - "a complex causal model".
For example:
(1) avoiding sweets--c-->improved heart health
(2) improved heart health---c--> improved overall health
-----
Chaining causal claims: (3) avoiding sweets ---c--> improved overall health
But what if avoiding sweets caused the person such stress (and that stress has an even stronger causal relationship to overall health), that their avoidance of sweets caused their health to deteriorate
Or what if avoiding sweets causes them to redirect their only free time to regulating their diet - time they would have otherwise spent exercising - and their lack of exercise causes their health to deteriorate.
It seems to me like the problem is that the conclusion equates/limits sweets consumption to its effects on heart health. However, avoiding sweets has a lot of other characteristics - some of which we can imagine might not improve heart health. To continue the analogy, perhaps avoiding sweets also has the characteristic of causing increased stress and decreasing exercise ( I know it's unlikely but it's just a hypothetical). In other words, there are many theoretically possible causal pathways between sweets consumption and overall health that are overlooked when the causal claims are chained.
Curious on people's thoughts
Causal claims can be chained together. If A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C. The A-C causal relationship is "indirect" in light of the mediating relationship to B.
so am I chaining this together properly
A the mining company's failure to properly line their dumping site. CAUSED B-- toxic chemicals to leach into the soil. CAUSED C toxic chemicals to leach into the soil. CAUSED D caused the dolphins to be poisoned.
and then we say that A caused D
so in the chain the how is basically the meet of the argument?
and the first and last can become linked ? #help