"First, it would not be borne out by predictions. If it's true that lung cancer results only from exposure to environmental hazards, then the prediction is that once those workers were better protected from those hazards, say with better masks, yet still smoked, their rates of lung cancer would drop. But, this would not be borne out by observations over the long term. Lung cancer from asbestos exposure surely would drop. But because smoking in fact causes lung cancer, if those workers kept smoking, their lung cancer rates would still match those in the general population who smoked yet were never subject to the additional occupational risk."
But wouldn't the incidence of lung cancer still be shown to have lowered among the workers now protected from asbestos (even if they still smoked), showing that some third factor can also be causing A and B?
Not sure how this paragraph is airtight in its causal logic. What am I missing?
this whole explanation feels counter to everything we have learned so far, since he is using outside knowledge the entire time. Ins't the whole thing that we don't apply what we know but only what we are given and the form of the argument?
@PaulinaBaczkowski My best guess is that what he's saying exists more for you to apply it to real life. On the LSAT, using knowledge outside of the stimulus could lead to you get the wrong answer, as the right answer may be valid but untrue.
Example: all bears are pink. Luna is a bear. Luna is pink.
You know that bears aren't pink, just from knowing what bears look like. But in the world of this LSAT question, bears are pink!
I guess my main question is that in formal logic section we were told to not use our pre-existing knowledge of the content in our search for answers. However, now I feel like the smoking and lung cancer example prompted me to use real-life knowledge to some degree in order to sort through the methods accordingly.
I felt as if I was using real-life knowledge to come to that decision. Let's say in the future its not a straight forward correlation of smoking and lung cancer but something that I might not have pre-existing knowledge would I then be cooked?
What's the proper way to think of this in terms of evaluating the 4 hypotheses through these methods and how I would incorporate my existing knowledge?
@CaseyLiu I think the way I see it is that these lessons are for different question types these strategies are not used for the "if all these statements are true than which one is logically true" questions. It's more for "which part would strengthen the scientists hypothesis". I think 7sage doesn't really do that well in the beginning which is explaining the question types FIRST. But i think it goes into depth in later lessons. So, for a first timer its harder to grasp for sure.
@renmiyano I'm very late to this, but my hypothesis is that direct evidence simply provides a fact, whereas the causal mechanism provides the explanation. They are linked in the sense that direct evidence can be used to strengthen a causal mechanism, but what if I provided direct evidence that whales are mammals? Does that do anything for your smoking scenario? This is my best guess, sorry if this was more confusing!
Am I the only one that’s been skipping through this module? It seems like common sense as far as causation vs correlation or am I being naive? Also all I have picked up is that both form of arguments (so far) are invalid.
The previous lesson tells us that causal mechanisms show how a given cause produces a given effect. So, in this lesson, when you explain that "asbestos and cigarette smoke cause lung cancer through very different causal mechanisms [because] asbestos causes cancer in the lining of the lungs whereas smoking causes cancer inside the lungs," this idea of causal mechanisms in these two different lessons is INCONSISTENT! In this example, you are making a differentiation between the EFFECTS of contracting lung cancer through asbestos and cigarettes... NOT THE CAUSES. There would be a difference in causal mechanisms if contracting lung cancer through asbestos was explicitly known as different than contracting lung cancer through smoking cigarettes which as far as I'm concerned is through the respiratory system.
this is still a cause within the mechanism: the lining issue causes cancer in asbestos vs inside lung issue causes cancer with cigs. it just explains that if the information within a causal mechanism is not consistent with the premises then that hypothesis is weakened. Since there is, within the causal mechanism, another reason/method (lining vs inside) of getting cancer from each cause, it is evidence that the hypothesis is weakened. Do not get too caught up in this; it's just a general way of weakening/strengthening ideas.
Other phenomena and their corresponding hypothesis are one-offs. This means that not every situation with the phenomena leads to the conclusion.
Like the mining and the dolphin example in earlier lessons.
> Hypothesis: This mine causes dead dolphins.
Reasoning/chain of phenomena: Mining→Toxins in soil→washed into ocean from rainfall→poisons the dolphins→dead dolphins.
This is a one-off because not every mine causes dead dolphins. What if the mine is somewhere that has no dolphins? Or what if this mine is not toxic to dolphins because it mines marble instead of coal? (Marble 'mines' are quarries, but you get the idea).
Whereas for this example:
Smoking is correlated with increased lung cancer rates. If smoking % goes up, then lung cancer % rates go up. There should be no scenario in which smoking rates go up, but lung cancer stays the same or goes down.
Some more examples I can think of:
Does more trash bins knocked down mean the fat cat did it everytime? No, it's a one-off.
Do more firefighters mean less fire related deaths? Hopefully.
I'm a visual learner, and I'm having trouble understanding the material. I've reviewed it multiple times, but I still don't get it. In previous lessons, the material included visual explanations, and I was able to understand the concepts without difficulty. Now, the material doesn't include any visual explanations for these new concepts. Other 7Sage subscribers have also complained about the lack of visual explanations and have reported feeling confused.
Assumed Causal Relationship: No visual explanations → Confusion/lack of understanding
Hypothesis 1: A causes B
The lack of visual explanations (A) causes confusion (B).
Hypothesis 2: B causes A
Confusion (B) causes the lack of visual explanations (A).
Hypothesis 3: C causes both A and B
Laziness (C) causes both no visual explanations (A) and confusion (B).
Hypothesis 4: Just a coincidence
There is no causal relationship between the lack of visual explanations (A) and confusion (B); they are just coincidentally related.
Evaluation:
Chronology: Hypothesis 2 is out because the lack of visual explanations came before my confusion.
Causal Mechanism: Hypothesis 3 is weakened because I reviewed the material multiple times, so I can’t be that lazy (but 7Sage, wya? lol)
Similar Causal Relationships: Hypothesis 1 is strengthened because other 7Sage subscribers are also reporting feeling confused due to the lack of visual explanations. It's not just me.
Direct Evidence: Hypothesis 4 is out because I'm a visual learner, and I need visual explanations to understand the material. Surely, it isn’t a coincidence that I’m confused.
Prediction: If I get visual explanations, I'll understand the material. And that's exactly what happened in previous lessons - when I got visual explanations, I was able to understand the concepts just fine. So, it's likely that if I get visual explanations now, I'll be able to understand the material again.
Under the paragraph for Hypothesis 3, it mentions that the final reason why it is wrong is because it changed the target phenomenon. However, I thought that the target phenomenon would be "lung cancer" and "smoking" would be the causal phenomenon. I then assumed the causal mechanism would be a statement that explains exactly how smoking leads to lung cancer. Can someone clarify why the entire statement "smoking is correlated with lung cancer" is the target phenomenon instead? Is this because the original statement mentions that the two are correlated and doesn't explicitly state smoking to be a cause of lung cancer? I think I'm just overall still confused about what exactly constitutes a phenomenon, hypothesis, and explanation. Also, is correlation then just a statement that basically states an observation of two things, and that's why the whole sentence "smoking is correlated with lung cancer" acts as a target phenomenon?
So would it be the case that a hypothesis must satisfy all the methods to build a stronger claim (like it's necessary to triangulate the phenomena)? or would it be that the we'd need to find an AC that uses a single method which brings the strongest evidence for or against? I'm assuming this is used for the most strengthen/weaken type questions.
When hypothesis two asks 'just how exactly would contracting lung cancer cause someone to smoke?' I'm thinking well... because the correlation we are trying to explain is not specific on what type of smoking (is cigarette smoking implied? probably? maybe?); having lung cancer could cause someone to smoke weed.
can someone please explain to me what are we doing here? Like the point of it all? I am so confused, and truly don't know what's happening or the point of this lesson and the next one. I feel so discouraged :( #help#help#help#help
One way to not feel lost is to go through the LR lesson plans first. Once you finish the lessons on LR, come back and see these Logic Foundations. It will make more sense.
have you taken any PrepTests yet? I have and I see where he's going with this, as it's a familiar way of thinking (critical thinking) other sites encourage you when studying for the LSAT. Don't fret, just star what you don't understand and come back another time.
On the LSAT, many causal argument questions will be about evaluating the strength or weakness of the relationship and overall structure of the argument. A lot of the times you'll be given a set of events correlated together and then asked about the strength of the hypothesis in question or if the argument is valid in terms of the premises supporting the conclusion. This lesson is teaching you how to answer those questions. The test makers will try to confuse you by conflating correlation with causation, incorrectly evaluating chronology, incorrectly using an analogous relationship, etc. and our job is to break down that causal argument into those 4 common hypothesis and use what we know about chronology, predictions, causal mechanisms, direct evidence, and other similar relationships to assess whether or not the argument is valid or not. Even if an argument may not make logical sense in the "real" world, all that matters is if in that particular world, do the premises (correlation or causal relationship) directly support the conclusion (hypothesis). It will start to make sense when you're practicing logical reasoning questions and seeing what types of questions typically get asked for causal arguments. I hope this helps!
While a hypothesis that passes all 5 evaluative methods would be considered strong, it is not always necessary for a hypothesis to pass all five methods to be considered plausible. A hypothesis could be considered strong even if it only passes some of the methods, depending on the specific context and the strength of the evidence for each method. The key is to evaluate each hypothesis on its own merits and consider the collective evidence supporting or refuting it.
Among the 5 evaluative methods, I would say only chronology is a strong requirement for causation. If the cause doesn't precede the effect, then it is super weak and you have no causation there. But for the rest of them, not neccesairly. For example, If a hypothesis fails to provide a plausible causal mechanism, it could be seen as weak, but this is not an absolute requirement for establishing causality. Similarly, the absence of similar causal relationships does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis. And it's not always possible to obtain direct evidence, especially in situations where controlled experiments are unethical or impractical.
I think on the LSAT and even in real life, it would be difficult to find examples and hypothesis that will survive all 5 levels of scrutiny. We just don't always have the information, evidence...etc. And for the test, what matters is refiing your intuition to eliminate a hypothesis that has the wrong chronology. And if two answer choices meet the chronology requirement, then you compare them on other evaluative metrics. The answer choice with the more/better ones will be the winner.
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.
36 comments
"First, it would not be borne out by predictions. If it's true that lung cancer results only from exposure to environmental hazards, then the prediction is that once those workers were better protected from those hazards, say with better masks, yet still smoked, their rates of lung cancer would drop. But, this would not be borne out by observations over the long term. Lung cancer from asbestos exposure surely would drop. But because smoking in fact causes lung cancer, if those workers kept smoking, their lung cancer rates would still match those in the general population who smoked yet were never subject to the additional occupational risk."
But wouldn't the incidence of lung cancer still be shown to have lowered among the workers now protected from asbestos (even if they still smoked), showing that some third factor can also be causing A and B?
Not sure how this paragraph is airtight in its causal logic. What am I missing?
this whole explanation feels counter to everything we have learned so far, since he is using outside knowledge the entire time. Ins't the whole thing that we don't apply what we know but only what we are given and the form of the argument?
I'm feigning for a skill builder after a billion of these bland videos. Never though I'd say that, but here we are.
Why do you use the most depressing examples lol great teacher though!
Confused because I thought we were not supposed to use pre-existing knowledge.
@PaulinaBaczkowski My best guess is that what he's saying exists more for you to apply it to real life. On the LSAT, using knowledge outside of the stimulus could lead to you get the wrong answer, as the right answer may be valid but untrue.
Example: all bears are pink. Luna is a bear. Luna is pink.
You know that bears aren't pink, just from knowing what bears look like. But in the world of this LSAT question, bears are pink!
I guess my main question is that in formal logic section we were told to not use our pre-existing knowledge of the content in our search for answers. However, now I feel like the smoking and lung cancer example prompted me to use real-life knowledge to some degree in order to sort through the methods accordingly.
I felt as if I was using real-life knowledge to come to that decision. Let's say in the future its not a straight forward correlation of smoking and lung cancer but something that I might not have pre-existing knowledge would I then be cooked?
What's the proper way to think of this in terms of evaluating the 4 hypotheses through these methods and how I would incorporate my existing knowledge?
@CaseyLiu I think the way I see it is that these lessons are for different question types these strategies are not used for the "if all these statements are true than which one is logically true" questions. It's more for "which part would strengthen the scientists hypothesis". I think 7sage doesn't really do that well in the beginning which is explaining the question types FIRST. But i think it goes into depth in later lessons. So, for a first timer its harder to grasp for sure.
#help
I'm having some trouble understanding the difference between direct evidence and causal mechanism. To me they seem linked together.
Smoking is correlated with lung cancer.
Causal mechanism: Smoking causes damage to DNA which in turn causes cancerous tumors.
Direct evidence that would strengthen our hypothesis: We observe the cells of smokers and find damaged DNA.
Direct evidence that would weaken our hypothesis: We observe the cells of smokers and find perfectly healthy DNA.
@renmiyano I'm very late to this, but my hypothesis is that direct evidence simply provides a fact, whereas the causal mechanism provides the explanation. They are linked in the sense that direct evidence can be used to strengthen a causal mechanism, but what if I provided direct evidence that whales are mammals? Does that do anything for your smoking scenario? This is my best guess, sorry if this was more confusing!
Not sure why this module switched from typed text and computer graphics to handwriting—it’s harder to read and not my preference.
.
Am I the only one that’s been skipping through this module? It seems like common sense as far as causation vs correlation or am I being naive? Also all I have picked up is that both form of arguments (so far) are invalid.
The previous lesson tells us that causal mechanisms show how a given cause produces a given effect. So, in this lesson, when you explain that "asbestos and cigarette smoke cause lung cancer through very different causal mechanisms [because] asbestos causes cancer in the lining of the lungs whereas smoking causes cancer inside the lungs," this idea of causal mechanisms in these two different lessons is INCONSISTENT! In this example, you are making a differentiation between the EFFECTS of contracting lung cancer through asbestos and cigarettes... NOT THE CAUSES. There would be a difference in causal mechanisms if contracting lung cancer through asbestos was explicitly known as different than contracting lung cancer through smoking cigarettes which as far as I'm concerned is through the respiratory system.
P.S. I dearly hope I am wrong about this because if I am right about this... I don't know what I'm paying for. #feedback
this is still a cause within the mechanism: the lining issue causes cancer in asbestos vs inside lung issue causes cancer with cigs. it just explains that if the information within a causal mechanism is not consistent with the premises then that hypothesis is weakened. Since there is, within the causal mechanism, another reason/method (lining vs inside) of getting cancer from each cause, it is evidence that the hypothesis is weakened. Do not get too caught up in this; it's just a general way of weakening/strengthening ideas.
I need to quit vaping
im vaping
came here to say this
@devansonjr bro how are you supposed to study this material while buzzed lol
#HELP
so Hypothesis 1) A causes B,
how is that not the same as a causation relationship. if you smoke then you get lung cancer.
please help im stuck!
My interpretation of it is as follows:
Other phenomena and their corresponding hypothesis are one-offs. This means that not every situation with the phenomena leads to the conclusion.
Like the mining and the dolphin example in earlier lessons.
> Hypothesis: This mine causes dead dolphins.
Reasoning/chain of phenomena: Mining→Toxins in soil→washed into ocean from rainfall→poisons the dolphins→dead dolphins.
This is a one-off because not every mine causes dead dolphins. What if the mine is somewhere that has no dolphins? Or what if this mine is not toxic to dolphins because it mines marble instead of coal? (Marble 'mines' are quarries, but you get the idea).
Whereas for this example:
Smoking is correlated with increased lung cancer rates. If smoking % goes up, then lung cancer % rates go up. There should be no scenario in which smoking rates go up, but lung cancer stays the same or goes down.
Some more examples I can think of:
Does more trash bins knocked down mean the fat cat did it everytime? No, it's a one-off.
Do more firefighters mean less fire related deaths? Hopefully.
More alcohol consumed, more liver damage.
...and so on.
I'm a visual learner, and I'm having trouble understanding the material. I've reviewed it multiple times, but I still don't get it. In previous lessons, the material included visual explanations, and I was able to understand the concepts without difficulty. Now, the material doesn't include any visual explanations for these new concepts. Other 7Sage subscribers have also complained about the lack of visual explanations and have reported feeling confused.
Assumed Causal Relationship: No visual explanations → Confusion/lack of understanding
Hypothesis 1: A causes B
The lack of visual explanations (A) causes confusion (B).
Hypothesis 2: B causes A
Confusion (B) causes the lack of visual explanations (A).
Hypothesis 3: C causes both A and B
Laziness (C) causes both no visual explanations (A) and confusion (B).
Hypothesis 4: Just a coincidence
There is no causal relationship between the lack of visual explanations (A) and confusion (B); they are just coincidentally related.
Evaluation:
Chronology: Hypothesis 2 is out because the lack of visual explanations came before my confusion.
Causal Mechanism: Hypothesis 3 is weakened because I reviewed the material multiple times, so I can’t be that lazy (but 7Sage, wya? lol)
Similar Causal Relationships: Hypothesis 1 is strengthened because other 7Sage subscribers are also reporting feeling confused due to the lack of visual explanations. It's not just me.
Direct Evidence: Hypothesis 4 is out because I'm a visual learner, and I need visual explanations to understand the material. Surely, it isn’t a coincidence that I’m confused.
Prediction: If I get visual explanations, I'll understand the material. And that's exactly what happened in previous lessons - when I got visual explanations, I was able to understand the concepts just fine. So, it's likely that if I get visual explanations now, I'll be able to understand the material again.
So, the true explanation has to be Hypothesis 1.
Under the paragraph for Hypothesis 3, it mentions that the final reason why it is wrong is because it changed the target phenomenon. However, I thought that the target phenomenon would be "lung cancer" and "smoking" would be the causal phenomenon. I then assumed the causal mechanism would be a statement that explains exactly how smoking leads to lung cancer. Can someone clarify why the entire statement "smoking is correlated with lung cancer" is the target phenomenon instead? Is this because the original statement mentions that the two are correlated and doesn't explicitly state smoking to be a cause of lung cancer? I think I'm just overall still confused about what exactly constitutes a phenomenon, hypothesis, and explanation. Also, is correlation then just a statement that basically states an observation of two things, and that's why the whole sentence "smoking is correlated with lung cancer" acts as a target phenomenon?
#help
"Big Monies"
So would it be the case that a hypothesis must satisfy all the methods to build a stronger claim (like it's necessary to triangulate the phenomena)? or would it be that the we'd need to find an AC that uses a single method which brings the strongest evidence for or against? I'm assuming this is used for the most strengthen/weaken type questions.
When hypothesis two asks 'just how exactly would contracting lung cancer cause someone to smoke?' I'm thinking well... because the correlation we are trying to explain is not specific on what type of smoking (is cigarette smoking implied? probably? maybe?); having lung cancer could cause someone to smoke weed.
This was an "a-ha" moment for me. I'm seeing how the answer choices in LR fall into some of these categories and could've helped me
Stay with me now ahh lesson
can someone please explain to me what are we doing here? Like the point of it all? I am so confused, and truly don't know what's happening or the point of this lesson and the next one. I feel so discouraged :( #help#help#help#help
One way to not feel lost is to go through the LR lesson plans first. Once you finish the lessons on LR, come back and see these Logic Foundations. It will make more sense.
have you taken any PrepTests yet? I have and I see where he's going with this, as it's a familiar way of thinking (critical thinking) other sites encourage you when studying for the LSAT. Don't fret, just star what you don't understand and come back another time.
On the LSAT, many causal argument questions will be about evaluating the strength or weakness of the relationship and overall structure of the argument. A lot of the times you'll be given a set of events correlated together and then asked about the strength of the hypothesis in question or if the argument is valid in terms of the premises supporting the conclusion. This lesson is teaching you how to answer those questions. The test makers will try to confuse you by conflating correlation with causation, incorrectly evaluating chronology, incorrectly using an analogous relationship, etc. and our job is to break down that causal argument into those 4 common hypothesis and use what we know about chronology, predictions, causal mechanisms, direct evidence, and other similar relationships to assess whether or not the argument is valid or not. Even if an argument may not make logical sense in the "real" world, all that matters is if in that particular world, do the premises (correlation or causal relationship) directly support the conclusion (hypothesis). It will start to make sense when you're practicing logical reasoning questions and seeing what types of questions typically get asked for causal arguments. I hope this helps!
so basically what we do is pick out a hypothesis
and then to determine how strong or weak it is we apply these 5 things and if they fail it is weak
but does a hypothesis have to pass all 5 of these or can it suffice with only one?
#help
While a hypothesis that passes all 5 evaluative methods would be considered strong, it is not always necessary for a hypothesis to pass all five methods to be considered plausible. A hypothesis could be considered strong even if it only passes some of the methods, depending on the specific context and the strength of the evidence for each method. The key is to evaluate each hypothesis on its own merits and consider the collective evidence supporting or refuting it.
Among the 5 evaluative methods, I would say only chronology is a strong requirement for causation. If the cause doesn't precede the effect, then it is super weak and you have no causation there. But for the rest of them, not neccesairly. For example, If a hypothesis fails to provide a plausible causal mechanism, it could be seen as weak, but this is not an absolute requirement for establishing causality. Similarly, the absence of similar causal relationships does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis. And it's not always possible to obtain direct evidence, especially in situations where controlled experiments are unethical or impractical.
I think on the LSAT and even in real life, it would be difficult to find examples and hypothesis that will survive all 5 levels of scrutiny. We just don't always have the information, evidence...etc. And for the test, what matters is refiing your intuition to eliminate a hypothesis that has the wrong chronology. And if two answer choices meet the chronology requirement, then you compare them on other evaluative metrics. The answer choice with the more/better ones will be the winner.
so does that mean multiple hypothesis can work, its just using our ability to find which one works out the best?
#help (Added by Admin)