Will the concept of direct evidence failing to prove an argument be explained further in upcoming lessons? If you have direct evidence that strongly supports a casual argument, why would it not be proved AKA making it valid? If I say that this thing caused this other thing, and I have the evidence to back it up, I intuitively consider it to be valid. Maybe I'm being hypercritical. Idk. Guess I will see.
If i may express a concern. I wonder how we should proceed if all these forms of analyses were presented as answer choices. Which one of them would be the correct one. I hope this is answered in one of the coming lessons.
IF that were to happen - which I highly doubt, I would, in that case, deduct answer choices based on strong language. The stronger the AC, the more unlikely for that to be the answer. Because again, in casual questions, the conclusion is a hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be certain or must be true.
Lessons 9 - 11 are MUCH easier to understand that lessons 6-7. I think this is because these lessons provide much more direct instruction on how to implement these strategies.
One way to help us understand is a sentence telling us how to check hypothesises with the strategies taught in the lesson. Funnily enough, I think this can be done by using the word check. I just went back and looked. Lessons 6 and 7 do not have that, lessons 9 -11 do.
Basically...
Usings instructive language like "check" >c> material easier to understand >c> Many students to grasp these concepts
So isn't it the case that direct evidence just looks like providing a causal mechanism?
Not exactly. It is a bit more nuanced.
1. Causal Mechanism: This is the "how" behind the causal relationship. It's the process or mechanism that explains how the cause leads to the effect. It provides a detailed causal story. Knowing the causal mechanism strengthens a hypothesis because it shows how the cause results in the effect.
2. Direct Evidence: This refers to evidence that directly supports or contradicts a hypothesis. It could be related to the causal mechanism, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. In the examples given in the lesson, the direct evidence does point towards the causal mechanism (e.g., high levels of toxicity, signs of asphyxiation, maximum rate of oxygen consumption), but it doesn't necessarily have to explain the mechanism.
For example, in the case of the dolphins and toxicity, the direct evidence might show that the dolphins had high levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. This would corroborate the toxic chemical hypothesis, but it doesn't necessarily explain the causal mechanism, which might involve how those chemicals interact with the dolphins' biology to cause death.
SO direct evidence can be used to strengthen a hypothesis without necessarily providing the causal mechanism. Direct evidence may point towards the causal mechanism, but it doesn't necessarily have to explain the "how" behind it. Instead, it can serve as evidence that the hypothesis is correct, even if the exact mechanism remains unknown.
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.
13 comments
What kind of tags we should use to try to tackle these questions ?
@PranjalChaudhary Same thing I want to know..
@PranjalChaudhary wdym by tags
[This comment was deleted.]
@generallypreparedforthings funniest part in discussion section
Will the concept of direct evidence failing to prove an argument be explained further in upcoming lessons? If you have direct evidence that strongly supports a casual argument, why would it not be proved AKA making it valid? If I say that this thing caused this other thing, and I have the evidence to back it up, I intuitively consider it to be valid. Maybe I'm being hypercritical. Idk. Guess I will see.
Yeah, there's a confusion here of formal conditional logic and causal logic/argumentation.
In causal, we are evaluating for strength of hypotheses rather than validity.
It's subtle but different.
If i may express a concern. I wonder how we should proceed if all these forms of analyses were presented as answer choices. Which one of them would be the correct one. I hope this is answered in one of the coming lessons.
IF that were to happen - which I highly doubt, I would, in that case, deduct answer choices based on strong language. The stronger the AC, the more unlikely for that to be the answer. Because again, in casual questions, the conclusion is a hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be certain or must be true.
This is MY opinion.
@mobawab3 What does AC mean?
#feedback
Lessons 9 - 11 are MUCH easier to understand that lessons 6-7. I think this is because these lessons provide much more direct instruction on how to implement these strategies.
One way to help us understand is a sentence telling us how to check hypothesises with the strategies taught in the lesson. Funnily enough, I think this can be done by using the word check. I just went back and looked. Lessons 6 and 7 do not have that, lessons 9 -11 do.
Basically...
Usings instructive language like "check" >c> material easier to understand >c> Many students to grasp these concepts
So isn't it the case that direct evidence just looks like providing a causal mechanism?
Not exactly. It is a bit more nuanced.
1. Causal Mechanism: This is the "how" behind the causal relationship. It's the process or mechanism that explains how the cause leads to the effect. It provides a detailed causal story. Knowing the causal mechanism strengthens a hypothesis because it shows how the cause results in the effect.
2. Direct Evidence: This refers to evidence that directly supports or contradicts a hypothesis. It could be related to the causal mechanism, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. In the examples given in the lesson, the direct evidence does point towards the causal mechanism (e.g., high levels of toxicity, signs of asphyxiation, maximum rate of oxygen consumption), but it doesn't necessarily have to explain the mechanism.
For example, in the case of the dolphins and toxicity, the direct evidence might show that the dolphins had high levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. This would corroborate the toxic chemical hypothesis, but it doesn't necessarily explain the causal mechanism, which might involve how those chemicals interact with the dolphins' biology to cause death.
SO direct evidence can be used to strengthen a hypothesis without necessarily providing the causal mechanism. Direct evidence may point towards the causal mechanism, but it doesn't necessarily have to explain the "how" behind it. Instead, it can serve as evidence that the hypothesis is correct, even if the exact mechanism remains unknown.
Thank you so much!