Informal Logic is based on a gradient spectrum: Weak or Strong? Formal Logic is based on a binary system: True or False. Weak or Strong Does NOT equal True or False. But it does point towards whether its True or False.
Just to make sure, in causal relationships the "cause" is the explanation and therefore, the conclusion. For example, I know in the cause and effect formula the "cause goes first" as in
(cause) chemical spill→(effect) dying dolphins. I understand that the cause must precede the effect but quite literally I mean goes first as in, when written down it is written before the effect.
In the premise and conclusion formula, the cause/ explanation is the conclusion and the effect is (the targeted phenomenon) is the premise. The targeted phenomenon or the effect, can be written in a way that "goes before" the conclusion.
(premise) dying dolphins
--------
(Conclusion) The chemical spill caused the dolphins to die.
I know this may seem like a very silly thing that I want confirmed, but I wanted to make sure that I am not making an error when writing out the casual relationships.
The conclusion is the hypothesis - chemical spill caused the dolphins to die.
Before this, we have premises and proximal phenomena.
The main difference here is we are not determining if a conclusion is valid or invalid like in formal conditional logic. We are evaluating how strong or week a conclusion is based off of the causes/phenomena and the strength of alternate hypothesis.
@burke.sandra.m I know you are long gone by now, but profanity has been well studied and shown to have a correlation for being smart. It also relieves stress too. Have you such the ego that you can't handle a form of speak (called exclaimers)
i'm just curious here, how is this different from mistaking correlation for causation?
like for example in the circumstance "you do some research and find that high altitude training worked wonders (or didn't) for the American team in the Tour de France bicycle race, then that's pretty good evidence for (or against) your hypothesis [that high altitude training works for or against American marathon runners]"
both feature American teams, so on one hand you could use this circumstance to attempt analogous causation but if its the correlation that both feature American teams for example, couldn't this also just be attributed to maybe a circumstance where American teams put more funding into sports (or something along these lines)? i'm confused how this doesn't mistake correlation for causation so any help here would be really appreciated!
Imagine every time you wear your lucky socks, your favorite basketball team wins. You might think, "My socks make them win!" But in reality, their win has nothing to do with your socks—they’re winning because of their practice, skills, and teamwork. You just noticed a pattern (correlation), but that doesn’t mean your socks caused the wins.
Using Similar Effects to Strengthen a Causal Argument:
Now, let’s say scientists want to know if drinking milk helps kids grow taller. They look at kids in different schools, different countries, and different backgrounds. If they find that everywhere kids who drink more milk tend to grow taller—even when they account for other factors like genetics or diet—that makes the argument stronger. They're not just seeing one random pattern; they're seeing the same effect in different situations.
The Difference:
Lucky socks? Just a coincidence (correlation, not causation).
Milk and growing taller in different schools and countries? Much stronger evidence (similar effects in different places strengthen the argument).
I think also with your "american team and funding" aspect, we also have to work within the bounds of the information we are given to an extent. If there's a mention of cardiovascular health, but no mention of funding, etc. then we have to work with what we got.
Made up stim: Baddiez city is currently suffering from high rates of unemployment and crime. Legistlators believe this rise was caused by the migration of Minajs into the city, who are notorious for looting. Therefore, we should deport all the Minajs to lower our crime and unemployment rate.
Stregthener: Before Migrating, the city where the Minajs resided previously experienced, Nicki Town, had a high rate of robberies
Weakener: Around the same time that the Minajs migrated, Baddiez elected a new president who boasted in their campaign about changing the city.
I understand this whole concept, but throughout these past few lessons I am curious... are they simply asking us to use our common sense? What if I know nothing about other oil spills in the rest of the world? What if I don't know about the effects that oil spills can have or how can they be carried? Am I just supposed to do my best and make something up that could very well never happen? I know this test is intuitive, but taking this approach seems like it can be a slippery slope.
I think the content of these lessons makes more sense once you start taking practice tests or looking at the specific types of questions that are asked on the LSAT (covered in later sections). There will be questions that present causal arguments, then ask you to select an answer choice that most strengthens the argument, weakens the argument, explains contradictions in the argument, etc. Without that context, it's a bit difficult to see how these specific lessons can contribute to one's success on the LSAT but because we are still in the "Foundations" section, I get why the discussions are still rather broad.
Not only are the funny examples and asides a much-needed smile respite in the otherwise grueling process of studying for the LSAT, they GENUINELY help me remember the concepts outlined in these lessons.
I feel like this invites us to make assumptions about things because they seem similar... seems like there is a lot of potential here for misusing this and make a logical fallacy in your thinking
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
50 comments
I love how fun this curriculum is. Makes it that much easier to look forward to studying. Never get rid of this personality.
Informal Logic is based on a gradient spectrum: Weak or Strong? Formal Logic is based on a binary system: True or False. Weak or Strong Does NOT equal True or False. But it does point towards whether its True or False.
lmao, thinking like a cat.. just say what u wanna say
i wish these were typed out digitally rather than written out. the different colors and animations makes it easier to understand visually
Chappelle's Show referenced
All the talk of dead dolphins is making me sad );
@lizbetharroyo423 #savethedolphins :')
Just to make sure, in causal relationships the "cause" is the explanation and therefore, the conclusion. For example, I know in the cause and effect formula the "cause goes first" as in
(cause) chemical spill→(effect) dying dolphins. I understand that the cause must precede the effect but quite literally I mean goes first as in, when written down it is written before the effect.
In the premise and conclusion formula, the cause/ explanation is the conclusion and the effect is (the targeted phenomenon) is the premise. The targeted phenomenon or the effect, can be written in a way that "goes before" the conclusion.
(premise) dying dolphins
--------
(Conclusion) The chemical spill caused the dolphins to die.
I know this may seem like a very silly thing that I want confirmed, but I wanted to make sure that I am not making an error when writing out the casual relationships.
The conclusion is the hypothesis - chemical spill caused the dolphins to die.
Before this, we have premises and proximal phenomena.
The main difference here is we are not determining if a conclusion is valid or invalid like in formal conditional logic. We are evaluating how strong or week a conclusion is based off of the causes/phenomena and the strength of alternate hypothesis.
fuck my couch? fuck your couch
As far as im concerned this is the plot of hillbilly elegy
and is not necessary (tee hee) refering back to conditional logic
see previous comment
it devalues 7sage
u sound like ur fun at parties
see previous reply
it devalues burke.sandra.m
Really? "fuck yo ?"
Has the english language fallen this far, that profanity is found in valid educational instruction?
Just chill :)
you'll be okay
has burke.sandra.m fallen this far, that they resort to trolling on comment threads?
@burke.sandra.m I know you are long gone by now, but profanity has been well studied and shown to have a correlation for being smart. It also relieves stress too. Have you such the ego that you can't handle a form of speak (called exclaimers)
i'm just curious here, how is this different from mistaking correlation for causation?
like for example in the circumstance "you do some research and find that high altitude training worked wonders (or didn't) for the American team in the Tour de France bicycle race, then that's pretty good evidence for (or against) your hypothesis [that high altitude training works for or against American marathon runners]"
both feature American teams, so on one hand you could use this circumstance to attempt analogous causation but if its the correlation that both feature American teams for example, couldn't this also just be attributed to maybe a circumstance where American teams put more funding into sports (or something along these lines)? i'm confused how this doesn't mistake correlation for causation so any help here would be really appreciated!
Mistaking Correlation for Causation:
Imagine every time you wear your lucky socks, your favorite basketball team wins. You might think, "My socks make them win!" But in reality, their win has nothing to do with your socks—they’re winning because of their practice, skills, and teamwork. You just noticed a pattern (correlation), but that doesn’t mean your socks caused the wins.
Using Similar Effects to Strengthen a Causal Argument:
Now, let’s say scientists want to know if drinking milk helps kids grow taller. They look at kids in different schools, different countries, and different backgrounds. If they find that everywhere kids who drink more milk tend to grow taller—even when they account for other factors like genetics or diet—that makes the argument stronger. They're not just seeing one random pattern; they're seeing the same effect in different situations.
The Difference:
Lucky socks? Just a coincidence (correlation, not causation).
Milk and growing taller in different schools and countries? Much stronger evidence (similar effects in different places strengthen the argument).
I think also with your "american team and funding" aspect, we also have to work within the bounds of the information we are given to an extent. If there's a mention of cardiovascular health, but no mention of funding, etc. then we have to work with what we got.
"then fuck yo couch!" 🤣
Made up stim: Baddiez city is currently suffering from high rates of unemployment and crime. Legistlators believe this rise was caused by the migration of Minajs into the city, who are notorious for looting. Therefore, we should deport all the Minajs to lower our crime and unemployment rate.
Stregthener: Before Migrating, the city where the Minajs resided previously experienced, Nicki Town, had a high rate of robberies
Weakener: Around the same time that the Minajs migrated, Baddiez elected a new president who boasted in their campaign about changing the city.
thanks gojo
Barb?
LMAOOOOO
I understand this whole concept, but throughout these past few lessons I am curious... are they simply asking us to use our common sense? What if I know nothing about other oil spills in the rest of the world? What if I don't know about the effects that oil spills can have or how can they be carried? Am I just supposed to do my best and make something up that could very well never happen? I know this test is intuitive, but taking this approach seems like it can be a slippery slope.
I think the content of these lessons makes more sense once you start taking practice tests or looking at the specific types of questions that are asked on the LSAT (covered in later sections). There will be questions that present causal arguments, then ask you to select an answer choice that most strengthens the argument, weakens the argument, explains contradictions in the argument, etc. Without that context, it's a bit difficult to see how these specific lessons can contribute to one's success on the LSAT but because we are still in the "Foundations" section, I get why the discussions are still rather broad.
Not only are the funny examples and asides a much-needed smile respite in the otherwise grueling process of studying for the LSAT, they GENUINELY help me remember the concepts outlined in these lessons.
that was coooold blooded #RickJames
"fuck yo couch!" kinda makes up for the lack of videos for the last dozen lessons or so hahaha
cold blooded #RickJames
"Fuck yo couch" Could this be a Rick James reference? Lol
"Fuck yo couch"
Was this written by JD Vance?
I appreciate the humor sprinkled throughout these lessons. It feels good to be able to laugh while studying for the LSAT.
"Fuck yo couch" I'm DEAD
I feel like this invites us to make assumptions about things because they seem similar... seems like there is a lot of potential here for misusing this and make a logical fallacy in your thinking
And JD Vance took that literally.
How do you think he got into law school?
$
how old is JY..... for scientific purposes...... its giving millennial