@miladplays #feedback this (examples under each type) needs to be integrated into the lesson!! The links are frustrating as it takes us to new pages and then I have to come back to this lesson each time I'm done reading the example. I don't want to click back/forth.
I am not seeing these patterns (but also I guess im not looking for them super hard) im getting all my questions right the first time and hoping not drilling these patterns now doesn't bite me too hard later
Wouldn't the Mild Winter Birds lesson fall under the last causal argument form (causal chains)?
I'm struggling to see how it falls under the causal argument that contains the Conclusion: Hypothesis about X and Y, maybe it's X causes Y or Y causes X
That might make it easier to remember and internalize. I could come up with my own names but I prefer to have the same names for it as my fellow 7Sagers :))
I'm really confused on how the "leaving a parking Space example" shows the first type of causal argument? There is no "one-off phenomenon" in that question from my understanding! Please lmk if anyone sees differently! Thanks!
@Isabella! The "one-off phenomenon" is cars leaving the specific parking lot. Let's say it's located in Washington, DC. Sure, there are multiple cars being studied, but they're all within this one lot. It's not like we're examining lots in DC, New York, Chicago, etc.
The conclusion says that the delays were due to possessiveness, but it doesn't say "only at this one parking lot in DC." Thus, we are hypothesizing that possessiveness causes delays in leaving parking spaces IN GENERAL.
Premise: Phenomenon A (where A is a correlation, say X is positively correlated with Y)
Conclusion: Hypothesis about X and Y, maybe it's X causes Y or Y causes X
this form is confusing me as wouldn't the conclusion. be inferring causation from correlation? If the premises state a corelation its simply just a correlation NOT CAUSATION, causation infers correlation but correlation does not infer CAUSATION.
Could someone please help to clarify this argument form and provide an example that helps to explain?
You're right that this kind of argument would be flawed. However, this lesson simply points out that this kind of argument does appear on the LSAT. That doesn't mean this form of argument is valid.
Hi! Could you please direct me to the lesson(s) that use this argument form in the stimulus? I tried to connect all the argument forms in this summary page to one of the 7 lessons in this section, but I'm stuck on which one this would be.
35 comments
Basic One-Off Causal Argument
Premise: Phenomenon A (a single occurrence).
Conclusion: Hypothesis X causes A
Ex: Rain caused today’s traffic accident.
Alternative Cause Argument
Premise: Phenomenon A
Premise: Hypothesis X does not cause A
Conclusion: Hypothesis Y causes A
Ex: It’s not the rain that caused the traffic, so maybe it was the construction.
Assumption-Based Prediction Argument
Premise: Phenomenon A
Assumption: X causes A
Conclusion: Some claim or prediction is made based on that assumption.
Ex: If germs cause colds (assumed), then more contact will increase colds.
Correlation-Based Causal Argument
Premise: Phenomenon A (a correlation between X and Y).
Conclusion: Hypothesis about the relationship (e.g., X causes Y or Y causes X)
Ex: People with higher incomes exercise more, so maybe exercise leads to better income.
Experiment-Based Causal Argument
Premise: Information resembling an experiment.
Conclusion: Causal claim based on experimental results.
Ex: In a study, those who took Vitamin C got fewer colds, so Vitamin C likely reduces colds.
Causal Chain Argument
Premise: Chain of causes (A causes B, B cause C, etc.)
Conclusion: Final link in this chain (A causes D).
Ex: Stress causes poor sleep, poor sleep affects focus, poor focus affects work quality, so stress reduces work quality.
Thanks!
deserves more likes
thank you so much omg
thank you for being a good person and sharing this.
Wow you are amazing for this.
love you
@miladplays I hope you get a 170+ and get into your top choice.
@miladplays Thank you so much.
@miladplays #feedback this (examples under each type) needs to be integrated into the lesson!! The links are frustrating as it takes us to new pages and then I have to come back to this lesson each time I'm done reading the example. I don't want to click back/forth.
A lot of people are struggling to connect it back to the lessons. Here’s what I wrote.
#2-3 : lessons 2 &3
#5 : lesson 4
#6: lessons 5-6
@M1ckeymina Thank you! I would've liked if they explained a bit more and given more examples.
wat
[This comment was deleted.]
what is this ?
Definately my hardest question type. Idk how yall see how to tretghen and weaken an argument but im sure itll come to me at some point
@GDatria715 SAME
@GDatria715 me as well; it's the first question type that had me reaching out to tutors via email
I am not seeing these patterns (but also I guess im not looking for them super hard) im getting all my questions right the first time and hoping not drilling these patterns now doesn't bite me too hard later
More examples needed!!!
Hmmm, what about examples for variants 1 and 2? ya know, the ones least elaborated upon
What are some good ways we can use these causal claim tendencies to select the best answers available?
I can’t see half of the screen. It cuts off mid way.
Does anyone have lessons that they know represent these forms? I wanted to ask before combing through .
HEAVEN SENT!
Wouldn't the Mild Winter Birds lesson fall under the last causal argument form (causal chains)?
I'm struggling to see how it falls under the causal argument that contains the Conclusion: Hypothesis about X and Y, maybe it's X causes Y or Y causes X
Actually, I answered it. For anyone wondering, the forms go in order of the lessons. Form one: Jocko the Chimp and Leaving a Parking Space
Form one, Variant one: Snoring
Form one, Variant two: Chronic Back Pain
Form two: Mediterranean Diet Health and Mild Winter Birds
Form three: Relaxation Training
Do these forms have a name? lol
That might make it easier to remember and internalize. I could come up with my own names but I prefer to have the same names for it as my fellow 7Sagers :))
I'm really confused on how the "leaving a parking Space example" shows the first type of causal argument? There is no "one-off phenomenon" in that question from my understanding! Please lmk if anyone sees differently! Thanks!
@Isabella! The "one-off phenomenon" is cars leaving the specific parking lot. Let's say it's located in Washington, DC. Sure, there are multiple cars being studied, but they're all within this one lot. It's not like we're examining lots in DC, New York, Chicago, etc.
The conclusion says that the delays were due to possessiveness, but it doesn't say "only at this one parking lot in DC." Thus, we are hypothesizing that possessiveness causes delays in leaving parking spaces IN GENERAL.
Premise: Phenomenon A (where A is a correlation, say X is positively correlated with Y)
Conclusion: Hypothesis about X and Y, maybe it's X causes Y or Y causes X
this form is confusing me as wouldn't the conclusion. be inferring causation from correlation? If the premises state a corelation its simply just a correlation NOT CAUSATION, causation infers correlation but correlation does not infer CAUSATION.
Could someone please help to clarify this argument form and provide an example that helps to explain?
Thank you so much.
#feedback#help
You're right that this kind of argument would be flawed. However, this lesson simply points out that this kind of argument does appear on the LSAT. That doesn't mean this form of argument is valid.
Hi! Could you please direct me to the lesson(s) that use this argument form in the stimulus? I tried to connect all the argument forms in this summary page to one of the 7 lessons in this section, but I'm stuck on which one this would be.
Can someone describe the difference between a conclusion and a hypothesis? Thanks!
Technically, the hypothesis is presented as the conclusion. But a hypothesis (the conclusion) is the explanation for the phenomenon (the premises).
hope this helps!