✅ Cause must come before effect. ❌ If effect happens before cause → hypothesis fails.
you’re just making sure you don’t confuse the order — because time order = proof of causal direction on LSAT logic.
🐬 Example (Dolphins)
Hypothesis: “Toxic chemicals caused the dolphins’ deaths.” But if we find out → the dolphins were already dying before the chemicals leaked... → Then the chemicals can’t be the cause. ❌
NOTE DO NOT CONFUSE THE CONTRAPOSITIVE WITH CONFUSING THE ORDER :
The contrapositive is not the same thing as mistaking the order. It’s actually the correct logical reversal — it preserves the truth of the original rule.
Let’s make it super clear 👇
🌿 The Original Rule
If A caused B, then A happened before B. ✅ (Cause must come before effect.)
A---->B
🔁 The Contrapositive (the logical flip)
If A did not happen before B, then A cannot be the cause of B. ✅ (Still true — this is valid logic.)
/B---->/A
🚫 Mistaking the Order (what not to do)
That’s when someone says:
“B happened before A, so B must have caused A.”
B---->A
❌ That’s the causal fallacy of reversing cause and effect — not a contrapositive, just wrong reasoning.
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?
This is causal logic in this set of lessons, not conditional logic.
Causal logic is informal and only has a strong or weak conclusion, not a valid or invalid one. Therefore, the framework of conditional logic doesn't quite work here.
its because the conditional that was used to explain that itself was not a causal claim but rather a formal conditional. The informal causal claims just composed the (A) and (B) values.
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.
Haha, I agree. From a philosophical point of view, there may be not something occurs before something, given the order, i.e, the time, is an illusion. The cause and effect are one concurrently. There is no past nor future but 'NOW'.
To clarify, I do still think the conditional logic of "If A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B" is useful. However, I think we should clarify that we're talking about conceptual precedence and not temporal precedence. Let's say the dolphins were showing up dead even before the chemical spill. While that would show that the phenomenon of dead dolphins is temporally prior to the chemical spill, it would also mean that it is conceptually prior. Conceptual priority seems to be presupposed by temporal priority. But it is primarily because the phenomenon of dead dolphins is conceptually prior that it cannot be the effect of the chemical spill.
Back to the cog example. Let's say that we separate Cog A from Cog B, and it turns out that Cog B is still moving without the aid of Cog A. Then we would know that Cog A's movement is not conceptually prior to Cog B's movement and that the former does not cause the latter.
It's not really the point though. The point is that this mechanism is something that the LSAT assumes, so it's another tool to have in the back pocket. Lots of things about the LSAT are not philosophically accurate, or the philosophy isn't relevant. We're learning how to answer questions in the way that the test requires.
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?
Not sure if this type of question ever appears on the LSAT but it is technically possible. Let's look at this possible example:
Stimuli:
Every time a rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.
Question: Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument below?
Correct answer choice:The sun was already on the horizon before the rooster started crowing.
This answer choice weakens the argument by showing that the supposed "effect" (sunrise) happened before the supposed "cause" (rooster crowing), thus challenging the causal relationship.
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.
35 comments
Fat Cat isn't a socialist? I think we have to put him onto Marx and Mao!
realistically how is everyone taking notes for this section?
@sapalmeri stuff I do good on and remember im not and stuff I do bad on and forget I go back and take notes on it
@sapalmeri I personally just summaries the "Let's Review" box of every lesson in my notebook
So far, we should basically be looking at the "When it happened" and "How it happened" when it comes to Causal Logic?
Pls correct me if I'm wrong
he talks to much it makes it more confusing... can someone please break it down for me ?
@A'mariePollard
✅ Cause must come before effect. ❌ If effect happens before cause → hypothesis fails.
you’re just making sure you don’t confuse the order — because time order = proof of causal direction on LSAT logic.
🐬 Example (Dolphins)
Hypothesis: “Toxic chemicals caused the dolphins’ deaths.” But if we find out → the dolphins were already dying before the chemicals leaked... → Then the chemicals can’t be the cause. ❌
NOTE DO NOT CONFUSE THE CONTRAPOSITIVE WITH CONFUSING THE ORDER :
The contrapositive is not the same thing as mistaking the order. It’s actually the correct logical reversal — it preserves the truth of the original rule.
Let’s make it super clear 👇
🌿 The Original Rule
🔁 The Contrapositive (the logical flip)
🚫 Mistaking the Order (what not to do)
That’s when someone says:
❌ That’s the causal fallacy of reversing cause and effect — not a contrapositive, just wrong reasoning.
@Liliana_Levy Thanks chatgpt
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?
I think your contrapositive is correct.
This is causal logic in this set of lessons, not conditional logic.
Causal logic is informal and only has a strong or weak conclusion, not a valid or invalid one. Therefore, the framework of conditional logic doesn't quite work here.
Hope that helps, desert fox!
Thank you! This will surely assist in capitulating North Africa.
its because the conditional that was used to explain that itself was not a causal claim but rather a formal conditional. The informal causal claims just composed the (A) and (B) values.
Rare Fat Cat L. Cats against Capitalism. Cats -m--> Anarchists.
Extremely common Mr. Fat Cat W.
He beat the case. #freeFatCat
look at my lawyer dawg i'm going to jailll
#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.
Haha, I agree. From a philosophical point of view, there may be not something occurs before something, given the order, i.e, the time, is an illusion. The cause and effect are one concurrently. There is no past nor future but 'NOW'.
To clarify, I do still think the conditional logic of "If A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B" is useful. However, I think we should clarify that we're talking about conceptual precedence and not temporal precedence. Let's say the dolphins were showing up dead even before the chemical spill. While that would show that the phenomenon of dead dolphins is temporally prior to the chemical spill, it would also mean that it is conceptually prior. Conceptual priority seems to be presupposed by temporal priority. But it is primarily because the phenomenon of dead dolphins is conceptually prior that it cannot be the effect of the chemical spill.
Back to the cog example. Let's say that we separate Cog A from Cog B, and it turns out that Cog B is still moving without the aid of Cog A. Then we would know that Cog A's movement is not conceptually prior to Cog B's movement and that the former does not cause the latter.
It's not really the point though. The point is that this mechanism is something that the LSAT assumes, so it's another tool to have in the back pocket. Lots of things about the LSAT are not philosophically accurate, or the philosophy isn't relevant. We're learning how to answer questions in the way that the test requires.
It's not the point, no, but I feel it's still worth pointing out- if not for LSAT accuracy, at the very least for accuracy in general.
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.
Good job. You literally made me laugh so damn much at this.
"Mr. Fat Cat returned from the weekly neighborhood meeting of cats for capitalism" PLEASE LOLLL
Purr???
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)
Your explanation is correct, but think what J.Y. was getting at is what the contrapositive of A did not precede B would be.
Original:
A → /B (meaning, A did not precede B)
Contrapositive:
B → /A (meaning, A is not the cause of B)
Could be wrong here but this was my understanding of it.
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
Not sure if this type of question ever appears on the LSAT but it is technically possible. Let's look at this possible example:
Stimuli:
Every time a rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.
Question: Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument below?
Correct answer choice:The sun was already on the horizon before the rooster started crowing.
This answer choice weakens the argument by showing that the supposed "effect" (sunrise) happened before the supposed "cause" (rooster crowing), thus challenging the causal relationship.