Self-study
Hi 7Sage community! I have a quick question on a concept/logic that I've been getting confused about recently in LR, specifically for causal stimuli.
I learned that one way to weaken a causal conclusion (e.g., A causes B) would be to show: when there is no cause, there is still an effect (e.g., even without A, B happens). However, I'm confused because the conclusion doesn't say that A is the ONLY cause. Hence, doesn't saying that when there is no cause A and we still see effect B not necessarily weaken?
***
More concrete example would be:
P: Children who play violent games have shown violent behavior.
C: We can hypothesize that violent games cause violent behavior.
Question: Which answer choice would weaken the argument above?
AC: Some children who have never played violent video games show violent behavior.
For this AC, my line of reasoning would be: we don't have the purported cause (playing violent games) but we still see the purported effect (showing violent behavior). Hence, the conclusion's causal relationship can be weakened -- this would be the classic no-cause, see-effect weakener.
But I'm also thinking: the conclusion did not say violent games are the only cause of violent behavior, which means the conclusion takes into account other causes. Hence, this AC does not weaken but rather has no effect.
Which line of reasoning would be correct?
This has been bothering me for the past few days -- I would love to get clarification. Thank you! :)
1
5 comments
Hi,
A weaken (strengthen) statement does not need to establish that the conclusion is incorrect (or correct). You doubt it, 'weakening', not destroying it. It means that possibility the conclusion is true can still exist.
This is confusing because the new information doesn't directly contradict our hypothesis, but the bar to weaken is much lower than direct contradiction. The fact that our effect can happen without our cause introduces some doubt. Now we know there's at least one other factor, and this factor could be the sole reason our effect is happening. At the very least, it decreases the probability that our factor is a cause.
This is why ruling out an alternative explanation strengthens an argument, and why introducing an alternative explanation weakens an argument. The reasoning is the same. We're playing a game of probabilities, not a game of completely disproving or proving the hypothesis.
Finally, to agree with Adam, we can't assume that the author has taken everything else into account. The only thing we know about the author is what they've told us, which is that they think A causes B. The new information doesn't tell us that the author is wrong, but it does give us reason to doubt the author.
@AriVilker1 Thank you sm -- this was very helpful!
Why are you assuming that the stim is taking into account something it isn't explicitly taking into account. Another way to think about it is what would be a necessary assumption for the conclusion? Your assumption is giving them a necessary assumption that they didn't include.
But, yes, in a general sense thinking about lack of causation, reverse causation, or a third thing causing both is a good place to mine. You just weren't seeing how the third here included the correct answer choice. Even a third factor having some impact weakens the conclusion, even if it doesn't destroy it.
@Adam Thank you sm -- this was extremely helpful!