anyone?

Hi JY, now that you provided those links and I was unfortunate enough to read some of them, you got me thinking.

If I say eating a whole pizza causes me to not feel hungry.

Someone goes and says eating a bucket of Icecream causes you to not feel hungry. Therefore, your theory of eating pizza is wrong.

In a weakening question, showing an alternative cause is usually considered to weaken a question involving a causal relationship.

However, the problem that I'm having is that, such as the example above, both could very well be the cause and showing an alternative cause would not weaken either theory.

It seems that the appropriate way to use an alternative cause to weaken a question should be something along the lines of this example:

I ate a whole pizza and that caused me to not feel hungry.

You also ate a bucket of Icecream, and that caused you to not feel hungry. Therefore, your theory of pizza is wrong.

(keep in mind that I understand that both examples are flawed, they are only being used to illustrate the issues)

So it seems that unless the second cause touches the occurrence of the effect that occurred on the first cause, it doesn't seem to weaken it.

Anyways, I guess it comes down to whether a causal relationship can be weaken, when the alternative cause doesn't occur within the occurrence of the first causation?

Please let me know your thoughts.

TC

Glad I could help, Peter!

Hey Peter,

Sorry, I thought you were talking about A is sufficient and B as necessary if and only if. I think you can see where I was coming from, since, If introduces sufficient, and only if, the necessary. Hence, A(--)B confusion.

It would be extremely difficult. I suppose, if we were to have a make-believe proof of causation, I guess it could be the following:

We have three cloned fishes that are identical genetically and physically from each other.

We have a closed environment where everything can be controlled, down to sodium, etc.

We introduce chemical T to the first fish -> it leads to physical abnormality in X amount of time.

We introduce chemical T to the second fish-> it leads to physical abnormality in X amount of time.

The time when chemical T is introduced to the first and second fish is the same.

We have proof that it is not the food that could lead to that physical abnormality.

We have proof that it is not the chemicals in the water aside from chemical T.

We have proof that they were not born predisposed to such a condition.

I guess even with all that, it still isn't enough to prove causation. But there is evidence of a very high correlation. The point I'm trying to make is how HARD it is to prove causation.

For example, in the scenario above, suppose one of the employees working on the research was being paid by a competing company to alter the results...

But every time you increase the correlation, your argument of causation strengthens.

PT45 S1 #12 is a great question!

Indeed, the answer is for you to show that causation is more likely, but keep in mind that causation has not been proven.

When an argument has a causal relationship in weakening questions, there are 3 ways to weaken that relationship

Provides an alternative cause

Provides an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect

Provides an example of the presumed effect without the presumed cause.

The stimulus provides the claim that D is unlikely to be the cause, due to D being present in the environment and yet the fish recovered normal hormone levels.

Dioxin ---------Change in Hormones

_______ -----> _____________________

Cause ---------- Effect

To weaken this relationship, the author provides an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect.

Dioxin------- NO Change in Hormones(after a short period of time)

_______ -----> _____________________

Cause ---------- Effect

Answer choice C says that dioxin was washed far down stream. Making Dioxin to not be present, therefore, undermining the argument that Dioxin did not have an effect. You see, the stronger you make that correlation, the stronger your claim of causation becomes.

Another way that the LSAT could have made it stronger would be to show the fish actually had not recovered normal hormone levels.

You should also review PT26, S2, Q12, and PT28, S1, Q5. Those two questions are similar in a way to this question.

Let me know if that makes sense! Hope that helps!

Hi Peter,

First of all, for an explanation of causation, I would try to stay away from making a bi-conditional like if and only if.

The reason for that is if and only if introduces A(--)B relationship.

A causes B, means that everytime we have A as the cause, we get B as the effect.

For example, we know that if we introduce chemical T in the water, chemical T CAUSES the EFFECT of fish developing physical deformation.

T Physical D.

--------- -------> --------

Cause Effect

Does that mean that if we see a fish that has a physical deformation, that it was caused by T? Maybe, or maybe a thousand other things caused the physical deformation, so from the Effect alone it's hard to trace a cause without some extra evidence.

Now, the LSAT tries to imply several times that there exists a causation relationship between two things. This is 99% of the time wrong. There might be a strong correlation between the two things, but essentially, there is no causation. Why? Because it's extremely hard to prove causation, and even harder to prove it in a 3/4 line stimulus. There will be times where your job as an LSAT taker will be to specifically to show how this causation doesn't exist.

I really really, really, recommend you to review your lesson on http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/causation/

Also, from your example, we can see that there is a possible correlation. But no, causation proved. An alternative cause is for example, that one of the employees puts poison in the water, right before releasing T.

Google Chrome

I use it all the time. Whenever I click 1.2x it speeds up..etc.

Hey John, just go to your app store and type 7sage proctor. Two versions should pop up, the hd and the normal one. I'm using the normal one.

Our group has already started. Please send us an e-mail if you would like to join. I can't promise that we will accept all applications though.

Please let us know. The group starts on monday. Meaning we won't be taking anyone else after that.

If you do wish to join, please follow the directions below:

Please e-mail lsatstudygroupdecember@.com with the following:

Your current schedule, timezone, available time for meetings(most likely once a day).

Current LSAT range with specifics about your strength and weaknesses(for example: good at LG -0/-1, not very good with RC -8/-9, and average at LR -5/-6 - note those numbers are made up).

Prefferred software or website used for meetings.

Keep in mind that the information above will be available to all others that wish to join the group, and the same will apply to them as well. That information will become available after everyone responds, so that everyone's profile will become available at the same time.

Currently, the idea is to meet up every day(Mon-Fri, with room for Sat-Sunday depending on the group) for two hours. The two hours will be split up evenly on 45minutes of LR, 30minutes on RC, 30minutes on LG, and 15minutes to be decided by the group.

Pt schedule will be determined by the group, as well as what to focus on. The first meeting will be mostly focused on the schedule for the meetings to come.

If you have any further questions or recommendations, please feel free to do so. Also feel free to foward this to anyone that you may see fit.