Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
They're kind of like orcas in the sense that they know they are smarter than the other animals around them but they lack the moral compass to not slap stingrays in the air or kill sharks for fun.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
@anulirz It depends on the question. In Must Be True questions, we cannot bring in information outside the given facts. But in questions like Strengthen or Weaken, we should use common sense reasonable interpretations to understand the impact of different answers.
I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
I don't like this misleading claim in the 5th paragraph which says that if we had AN athlete(one) train in low oxygen then her results would prove something, as can clearly be seen in LSAT questions statistical fallacies such as improper sample size is tested and important on the LSAT. One athlete is not a proper sample size to test this hypothesis.
That's true! But we are just strengthening our hypothesis by these methods. Nothing can prove a hypothesis unless it is provided and declared as truth and fact. In other words no amount of correlation can ever prove a causation , it can only support it and make it stronger!
You are right, and I believe a future lesson touches on this. However, this lesson is about evaluating the truth of a hypothesis' predictions, not proving the hypothesis true. If a hypothesis' predictions are observed to be true, that supports the hypothesis, increasing the likelihood that it is true.
61 comments
The LSAT writers are evil motherfuckers.
@kieranwilson1227215 I agree
#feedback using the same 2 examples throughout these lessons has been very helpful in me understanding and retaining the information!
same
Out of all the sections in Foundations, Logic of Causation is the most confusing. Understanding how this relates to the LSAT first would be more beneficial. I feel like I'm trying to understand abstract concepts with no clue where this is going. The handwritten notes are also harder to follow. #feedback
who is writing these LOL
In all fairness, dolphins are evil themselves.
They're kind of like orcas in the sense that they know they are smarter than the other animals around them but they lack the moral compass to not slap stingrays in the air or kill sharks for fun.
ive somehow gotten on Dolphin hating Tiktok and apparently, they are evil.
@pietroa.parillo yess I am a shark person now
These jokes keep me going. Thank you for the lols
"Congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker!" LOL True, please keep these coming!
I find the handwritten notes very hard to follow.
And I agree that LSAT style questions incorporated would be much more beneficial to absorb this information. We all took some form of science classes in school; we know what hypotheses are. What we don't know is how the LSAT use these to trick us!
"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."
Peak.
@mattcriner25959
#feedback- Add more "cuss words". If more cuss words are added, then I will absorb material better.
For those of you getting tripped on the word, who the fuck cares? Build a bridge, get over it.
I agree. more cuss words is sufficient to absorbing material better #feedback
[This comment was deleted.]
@CaseyLiu womp womp
I wish some of these video lessons would apply the information to LSAT questions. These are still very good lessons!!
@JRamirez i agree, it all feels like common sense until i realize i dont know how to properly apply it
This guy is funny af
Did a dolphin hurt you?
honestly feels like i'm learning these concepts from friends when y'all say things like "you're an evil motherfucker" LOL love it
I am HERE for the COLORFUL language in the text!!!! Thank you!!!
This guy gets it
I busted out laughing and it made me more engaged
Guess I am an evil motherfucker then lmao caught me so off guard
aren't we not allowed to use outside information.... I am so confused
@anulirz It depends on the question. In Must Be True questions, we cannot bring in information outside the given facts. But in questions like Strengthen or Weaken, we should use common sense reasonable interpretations to understand the impact of different answers.
@Kevin_Lin makes sense
I'm struggling to follow this portion of the curriculum because of how far it strays from a rigorous discussion of causal inference. Generally, in my prior learning, prediction is distinct from causal inference (because prediction doesn't care whether you have identified a true cause or some other relationship, just whether it can predict the result), but I think when Ping says hypotheses make predictions, he means "hypotheses are testable". That's sensible, and foundational to an inductive approach (vs. the deductive approach in the formal logic section). It is strange for it to appear 10 lessons deep in this section, though.
@dh2303 I agree, I'm also having difficulty taking notes for this part of the curriculum.
Im liking the Dr Claw reference
Lol
I don't like this misleading claim in the 5th paragraph which says that if we had AN athlete(one) train in low oxygen then her results would prove something, as can clearly be seen in LSAT questions statistical fallacies such as improper sample size is tested and important on the LSAT. One athlete is not a proper sample size to test this hypothesis.
most of this seems to be common sense
In the scientific world, a hypothesis cannot be proven true but either supported or not supported by the evidence.
That's true! But we are just strengthening our hypothesis by these methods. Nothing can prove a hypothesis unless it is provided and declared as truth and fact. In other words no amount of correlation can ever prove a causation , it can only support it and make it stronger!
good point! They should fix this #feedback
You are right, and I believe a future lesson touches on this. However, this lesson is about evaluating the truth of a hypothesis' predictions, not proving the hypothesis true. If a hypothesis' predictions are observed to be true, that supports the hypothesis, increasing the likelihood that it is true.