Why is this considered a correlation phenomena when the stim says, "caused by"? I assumed this meant a direct cause and effect relationship and still got the question correct
I went a minute over and got it right. Got it reccomended for BR and got it wrong on BR because of doubt. Not the first time this has happened. Sometimes I feel like BR is pretty useless :/
Can “caused by” be a consistent indicator to demonstrate the causal relationship?
I.e. “This decline NGO (B) is caused by corresponding growth of gov services (A)” Therefore, anything that follows “caused by” can be interpreted in lawgic as B “caused by” A, means A causes B.
Is that universal for “caused by” being an “indicator”.
Took me 7 minutes, but I got it correct first try, and wrong in Blind review LoL. I just felt forced to choose something in Blind review..so I chose anything just to get off the screen..even though I knew none of the other answer choices were correct. Once I start PT's I hope to get much faster at questions.
Counterexample was a word I didn't know. The definition that came up: an example that shows it contradicts an idea or theory. So it's meant to disprove something or show something is wrong. So in the video, when JY says Cats are nice, and I say wait no, you're wrong, and point out that Garfield and Jerry mean-- that's a counterexample. Which is why B is wrong. The author doesn't say that the conclusion was wrong, in fact they say the conclusion might be right. That's not a counterexample. That's just being nice and curious, looking for alternative explanations.
I chose D but B was the last answer choice I crossed out before choosing D. B was enticing but the word "counterexample" didn't fit because the author wasn't necessarily providing a counterexample (aka another causal phenomenon) they were just providing an alternative hypothesis/explanation.
For the takeaway questions, did anyone answer the last one? I didn't realize you could "counter" a correlation. It makes sense to me that you could "counter" a causal relationship, but not a correlation, given that a correlation is a fact?? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question/the terms?
I'm a lonely individual and walked in the park all day studying this section- a tad sad I didn't complete it this weekend- but here I am making it make sense to my brain and getting it right on my first try.
It'd be nice to get a second handpicked problem to test this out against. Maybe even a third. After seeing what I got wrong and being able to make it right, it'd be great to reinforce the skills. #feedback
#help I think I misinterpreted counterexample. Would it be fair to say that AC B is most similar to hypothesis 3: C (a counterexample) causes both A and B? And that in AC D offering an alternate explanation is synonymous with hypothesis 2: B causes A? Offering a counterexample and offering an alternate explanation feels very similar to me.
Answer D is correct because in the stimulus the author states that observers are arguing NGO's are decreasing due to an increase in gov't services. The editorialist states this may not be true (that increasing gov't services is causing a decrease in NGOs) and puts forth the possibility that "the latter may indeed cause the former". This is where understanding referentials is insanely important. You must know what the author refers to when he says former and latter. In this instance, the former refers to NGO's and the latter refers to gov't services. Therefore, he is arguing that it could be true that Gov't services may be increasing due to the decrease in volunteerism/NGO's(basically flipping around the original arguement) - and since there is a decrease in the NGO's they may not be providing these services that they did prior so the government has stepped up and provided the services that are no longer provided due to this decrease. Hopefully, that made sense!
I am a little confused how "D" is right only because the question states is a "cause" not a correlation. Does anyone know why this is?
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!
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.
40 comments
Ok I got it right, but I have a different reasoning on how I got it
I saw it as:
Casual Argument:
Decline in n. of NGO correlates with growth or increase of governement services
Conclusion
the Increase of Governement Services correlates with decrease in voluntareerism
Answer: alternate explaination to the correlation cited in casual argument
I got it right, but I don't understand how he got the same answer with a different reasoning
I finally got it right, crying emoji*
Genuinely felt good about this one! Long time since I felt that way lol
Why is this considered a correlation phenomena when the stim says, "caused by"? I assumed this meant a direct cause and effect relationship and still got the question correct
I went a minute over and got it right. Got it reccomended for BR and got it wrong on BR because of doubt. Not the first time this has happened. Sometimes I feel like BR is pretty useless :/
Can “caused by” be a consistent indicator to demonstrate the causal relationship?
I.e. “This decline NGO (B) is caused by corresponding growth of gov services (A)” Therefore, anything that follows “caused by” can be interpreted in lawgic as B “caused by” A, means A causes B.
Is that universal for “caused by” being an “indicator”.
Took me 7 minutes, but I got it correct first try, and wrong in Blind review LoL. I just felt forced to choose something in Blind review..so I chose anything just to get off the screen..even though I knew none of the other answer choices were correct. Once I start PT's I hope to get much faster at questions.
Counterexample was a word I didn't know. The definition that came up: an example that shows it contradicts an idea or theory. So it's meant to disprove something or show something is wrong. So in the video, when JY says Cats are nice, and I say wait no, you're wrong, and point out that Garfield and Jerry mean-- that's a counterexample. Which is why B is wrong. The author doesn't say that the conclusion was wrong, in fact they say the conclusion might be right. That's not a counterexample. That's just being nice and curious, looking for alternative explanations.
How would be prove this causal relationship?
I chose D but B was the last answer choice I crossed out before choosing D. B was enticing but the word "counterexample" didn't fit because the author wasn't necessarily providing a counterexample (aka another causal phenomenon) they were just providing an alternative hypothesis/explanation.
I narrowed it down to b and d and I pick b because honestly I thought b and d were saying the same thing
D: offering an alternate explanation of the correlation cited.
The correlation cited by the question was that Government services increase, causing community services to decrease.
The editorialist suggested that it's the opposite. They did not give an alternative correlation but offered a counterexample.
For the takeaway questions, did anyone answer the last one? I didn't realize you could "counter" a correlation. It makes sense to me that you could "counter" a causal relationship, but not a correlation, given that a correlation is a fact?? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question/the terms?
Only downside was being 46 seconds over the time.
I'm a lonely individual and walked in the park all day studying this section- a tad sad I didn't complete it this weekend- but here I am making it make sense to my brain and getting it right on my first try.
I feel like I broke it down completely correctly and then still got the answer wrong. Ugh.
first one I've gotten right in a WHILE. happy happy happy
It'd be nice to get a second handpicked problem to test this out against. Maybe even a third. After seeing what I got wrong and being able to make it right, it'd be great to reinforce the skills. #feedback
Im always in between the right answer and the wrong one and somehow always choose the wrong one.
Did someone answered these questions?
What is one causal explanation for that correlation?
What are a few alternative explanations for that correlation?
Do alternative explanations “counter” a correlation? Why or why not?
pretty good
Easy money
#help I think I misinterpreted counterexample. Would it be fair to say that AC B is most similar to hypothesis 3: C (a counterexample) causes both A and B? And that in AC D offering an alternate explanation is synonymous with hypothesis 2: B causes A? Offering a counterexample and offering an alternate explanation feels very similar to me.
Answer D is correct because in the stimulus the author states that observers are arguing NGO's are decreasing due to an increase in gov't services. The editorialist states this may not be true (that increasing gov't services is causing a decrease in NGOs) and puts forth the possibility that "the latter may indeed cause the former". This is where understanding referentials is insanely important. You must know what the author refers to when he says former and latter. In this instance, the former refers to NGO's and the latter refers to gov't services. Therefore, he is arguing that it could be true that Gov't services may be increasing due to the decrease in volunteerism/NGO's(basically flipping around the original arguement) - and since there is a decrease in the NGO's they may not be providing these services that they did prior so the government has stepped up and provided the services that are no longer provided due to this decrease. Hopefully, that made sense!
I am a little confused how "D" is right only because the question states is a "cause" not a correlation. Does anyone know why this is?