If anyone else is confused about the contrapositive form here, this might help.
What confused me initially is I was thinking:
A -> B
contrapositive : /A -> /B ...so how the hell does that capture the sense of if A does not precede B then A can't cause B.
The conditional looks like this:
If A can cause B -> then it must be the case that A preceded B
contrapositive: Should A NOT precede B -> A CANNOT cause B.
In this form where you take the A -> B to be the sufficient cause and the chronology of A and B to be the necessary cause, you can tell see clearly how the negation of the A to B timeline requires the A causing B negation.
'So, if the hypothesis is that A caused B, then it must be the case that A occurred before B. That's conditional logic. Quick, what's the contrapositive? If phenomena A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B.'
Don't contrapositives follow the form:
A --> B
/B --> /A
How does the contrapositive here work? Am I missing something?
The philosophical logic here is incorrect. Causes don't always precede their effects (in the temporal sense that this article seems to assume). Causes always conceptually precede their effects, yes, but not always temporally.
For example, consider the cogs of a machine. Cog A moves Cog B. Does this mean that Cog A's movement occurs before Cog B's movement? No, of course not; they move simultaneously.
While it's true that an effect cannot occur before its cause, it's possible for causes and effects to occur simultaneously. In fact, philosophers make a distinction between vertical causality and horizontal causality. The former refers to causal chains where each element occurs simultaneously, and the latter refers to causal chains where elements occur in temporal succession.
Coincidence of movement, spatial relationships, etc are other ways besides temporal succession that people can infer cause and effect.
I'm not sure how important this correction is for the purposes of LSAT prep, but this did bother me a bit and I wanted to write a comment.
Why is the contrapositive of "A caused B, then it must be the case that A occurred before B", "If phenomenon A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B"
I thought with the contrapositive we flipped and negated:
does this mean the lsat will never try to weaken a causal hypothesis claim by giving an answer choice for a weaken question which states the effect happened before the cause?
#help
1
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.
29 comments
he talks to much it makes it more confusing... can someone please break it down for me ?
Trash Bin Example:
Claim: Fat Cat knocked over the trash.
🧠 Timeline check:
If bin was toppled before Fat Cat got home →
❌ He can’t be the cause.
If anyone else is confused about the contrapositive form here, this might help.
What confused me initially is I was thinking:
A -> B
contrapositive : /A -> /B ...so how the hell does that capture the sense of if A does not precede B then A can't cause B.
The conditional looks like this:
If A can cause B -> then it must be the case that A preceded B
contrapositive: Should A NOT precede B -> A CANNOT cause B.
In this form where you take the A -> B to be the sufficient cause and the chronology of A and B to be the necessary cause, you can tell see clearly how the negation of the A to B timeline requires the A causing B negation.
'So, if the hypothesis is that A caused B, then it must be the case that A occurred before B. That's conditional logic. Quick, what's the contrapositive? If phenomena A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B.'
Don't contrapositives follow the form:
A --> B
/B --> /A
How does the contrapositive here work? Am I missing something?
Rare Fat Cat L. Cats against Capitalism. Cats -m--> Anarchists.
Extremely common Mr. Fat Cat W.
#feedback
The philosophical logic here is incorrect. Causes don't always precede their effects (in the temporal sense that this article seems to assume). Causes always conceptually precede their effects, yes, but not always temporally.
For example, consider the cogs of a machine. Cog A moves Cog B. Does this mean that Cog A's movement occurs before Cog B's movement? No, of course not; they move simultaneously.
While it's true that an effect cannot occur before its cause, it's possible for causes and effects to occur simultaneously. In fact, philosophers make a distinction between vertical causality and horizontal causality. The former refers to causal chains where each element occurs simultaneously, and the latter refers to causal chains where elements occur in temporal succession.
Coincidence of movement, spatial relationships, etc are other ways besides temporal succession that people can infer cause and effect.
I'm not sure how important this correction is for the purposes of LSAT prep, but this did bother me a bit and I wanted to write a comment.
So pooping in a bag is not normal...? (asking for a friend)
CATS FOR CAPITALISM???
Based Mr. Fat Cat?
I too am a Cat for Capitalism. I'm tired of all these strays living off the welfare Kible I work so hard for my human to get.
"Mr. Fat Cat returned from the weekly neighborhood meeting of cats for capitalism" PLEASE LOLLL
Why is the contrapositive of "A caused B, then it must be the case that A occurred before B", "If phenomenon A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B"
I thought with the contrapositive we flipped and negated:
Original Argument
A--->B
A occurred before B
Contrapositive
/B---->/A
B did not occur before A
#help (Added by Admin)
does this mean the lsat will never try to weaken a causal hypothesis claim by giving an answer choice for a weaken question which states the effect happened before the cause?
#help