Self-study
Dear everyone,
Just a quick question. If we have a A correlates with B and then a A causes B type of argument as a weakening stimulus, can we weaken the argument by showing that a new factor C causes B? or does the AC HAVE to touch on both A and B? I am getting super confused with this concept all of a sudden so any kind of help would be greatly greatly appreciated. Thank you.
1
1 comments
Hi JW,
As a general LSAT principle, an argument can usually be weakened by attacking any single component of the argument rather than having to dismantle the entire chain all at once.
And as a more specific correlation/causation principle, you do not necessarily have to attack the correlation itself in order to weaken the causal conclusion being drawn from that correlation.
So in the example you gave, if the argument is basically:
“A correlates with B, therefore A causes B,”
then introducing an alternative causal factor C that could independently explain B can absolutely weaken the argument even if the correlation between A and B still remains intact.
In other words, you’re weakening the causal interpretation of the relationship, not necessarily denying that the relationship exists.
And that’s a very common weakening approach on the LSAT:
alternative causes
reversed causation
coincidence
third-factor explanations
All of those attack the leap from correlation to causation without necessarily destroying the original correlation.
And of course, without seeing the actual stimulus and answer choices, I’d frame all of this more as the general operating framework for correlation/causation reasoning rather than guidance toward any specific answer choice.
Hope that helps.