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.
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!
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.
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
#feedback would be awesome if we could annotate these
19
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.
48 comments
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 );
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.
fuck my couch? fuck your couch
and is not necessary (tee hee) refering back to conditional logic
see previous comment
it devalues 7sage
Really? "fuck yo ?"
Has the english language fallen this far, that profanity is found in valid educational instruction?
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!
"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.
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.
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 old is JY..... for scientific purposes...... its giving millennial
JY is literally hilarious.... like omg f yo couch ?? I'm dying.
#feedback would be awesome if we could annotate these