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?
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.
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
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)
0
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.
32 comments
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.
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?
#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.
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.
I need to quit vaping
#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!
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
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
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)