Causation/correlation and phenomenon

tanes256

Hello, everyone. I’ve been drilling strengthening questions and I’m having an issue with causation/correlation and phenomenon type arguments. The lines have become blurred for me. Often times I cannot tell which the argument is presenting because they seem to be so similar but my accuracy with this question type has increased. I think I have a strong definition of the two but I’m having a tough time differentiating between the two when presented in arguments. I initially had PT 25-S2-Q10 as causation because I thought the argument was stating the ultraviolet light is causing the insects to be attracted to the webs but I changed to phenomenon because I figured that the insects being attracted to the webs because of the ultraviolet light is an observed phenomenon and the info about Glomosus spiderwebs was given as supporting evidence. Does “probably” give hint to anything here? I figured it would give hint to phenomenon rather than causation but idk if you can saying something “probably” caused something in causation/correlation type arguments. Either it did or it didn’t. When i hit the AC I’m looking for specific AC types depending on whether it’s a phenomenon or causation/correlation type argument. I haven’t come across many arguments by analogy. I haven’t paid attention but could there be both types of AC to trip you up? This is my greatest worry. For PT23-S2-Q14 I initially chose phenomenon but changed to causation. I got the question right but looking back I actually think it’s phenomenon. Which is it??! Also, please let me know if I’m doing too much with this question type. I’ve seen improvement but maybe I’m focusing on this too much and not something else enough. TIA

Trust But Verify

Here's overall advice that helped me. 1st like the CC, we must remember that 1% help or 99% help strengthens an argument. Whenever you see an stimulus argue causation for a conclusion, 1st remember this is a flaw, to strengthen a causation argument the AC may be subtle ranging from showing without B present, A was also absent. Remember this doesn't prove the argument 100% valid but it helps. Also another subtle strengthen AC may be a similar comparison (ive seen this on earlier test especially). [in PowerScore's drill book they have a chapter on specifically cause and effect, watch JYs lesson on Strengthen and Weaken then drill from this chapter. Cause and Effect can be used for majority of the LR questions]. Also ive seen a couple times, Strengthen may have a defender AC that also helps. I had to get in the mindset of just helping an argument for Strengthening and not fixing (i hope that makes sense). I'm sure some other folks have better advice but thats what has helped me in recent weeks.

Keep drilling though. Patterns start to become clearly.

Namaste.

tanes256

@"Trust But Verify" thank you! Any tips on how to tell the difference between the two? Lately they’re both looking the same to me.

keets993

This seminar might be helpful, as it deals mainly with causation, correlation, and phenomenon for weaken and strengthen questions; https://7sage.com/webinar/weaken-strengthen/

tanes256

@keets993 thank you! I’ve seen it a few times. Not sure why the lines have blurred for me.

keets993

@tanes256 so I briefly glanced at the two questions you asked about. For PT25, S2, Q14, if you had to label it it would be phenomenon and hypothesis. They are attracted to the web and the stimulus makes a conclusion as to why. Same with PT23, S2, Q10. X happened, and author says it's because of Y. It's presented as fact that X happened, and researchers want to know why.

For causation and correlation it would have to be two or more simultaneous things happening and the author generalizing a relationship between the two. For example, in studies, it was found that people who ate more sugar had higher blood pressure. The stimulus would then conclude that eating sugar causes high blood pressure. Well, maybe there's another cause for high blood pressure like lack of exercise or stress can cause both things. For causation, the two or more happen simultaneously or close enough. X and Z and the author states that X cause Z or whatever.

Perhaps the lines have been blurred because you're trying to force yourself to think of these questions as correlation/causation or phenomenon/hypothesis? Especially since you say you have recently gotten better at them. I think being able to label the question as one or the other is helpful for when you're stuck or if you're looking to prephrase.

Hope that helps!

akistotle

@tanes256 said:
I’ve been drilling strengthening questions and I’m having an issue with causation/correlation and phenomenon type arguments. The lines have become blurred for me.

I don't think there should be a clear line between these two types since causation/correlation describe hypothesis/phenomenon.

For example, PT19.S2.Q4 is Phenomenon/Hypothesis/Prediction and Correlation/Causation question:
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-04/

[Phenomenon]
Large ferrous material ==correlated== small amounts of CO2
Algae absorb CO2
————————————
[Hypothesis]
ferrous material ==cause==> ↑Algae

If the hypothesis is true, we can predict that there would be an increase in the shells that diatoms leave when they die, but if there are no increase, the hypothesis is falsified. (D) shows algae were not there.

To falsify a hypothesis, we have to test the prediction that theory makes. To strengthen a hypothesis, we have to say that the prediction drawn from the hypothesis is true.

akistotle

You see a correlation (A ==correlated== B ), which is a phenomenon. And you conclude that one thing is causing the other (A ==cause==> B; causation), which is a hypothesis.

But that's a flaw because you haven't look at other possibilities:

1. B ==caused==> A
2. X caused both A and B
3. A and B are merely coincidentally correlated

akistotle

Here is an example of correlation/causation flaw.

Here is a phenomenon:
https://imgur.com/E3NYqFv
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

And you come up a hypothesis:
The spending on science is causing suicides!!!

akistotle

@keets993 said:
@tanes256 so I briefly glanced at the two questions you asked about. For PT25, S2, Q14, if you had to label it it would be phenomenon and hypothesis. They are attracted to the web and the stimulus makes a conclusion as to why. Same with PT23, S2, Q10. X happened, and author says it's because of Y. It's presented as fact that X happened, and researchers want to know why.

For causation and correlation it would have to be two or more simultaneous things happening and the author generalizing a relationship between the two. For example, in studies, it was found that people who ate more sugar had higher blood pressure. The stimulus would then conclude that eating sugar causes high blood pressure. Well, maybe there's another cause for high blood pressure like lack of exercise or stress can cause both things. For causation, the two or more happen simultaneously or close enough. X and Z and the author states that X cause Z or whatever.

Perhaps the lines have been blurred because you're trying to force yourself to think of these questions as correlation/causation or phenomenon/hypothesis? Especially since you say you have recently gotten better at them. I think being able to label the question as one or the other is helpful for when you're stuck or if you're looking to prephrase.

Hope that helps!

This explanation is great!

So I looked at PT23.S2.Q14.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-14/

Here Kim is trying to explain (present a hypothesis) why there was a change of attitude (phenomenon). Her hypothesis is that the change of attitude occured because of a increase in life expectancy. She doen't even present a correlation between these two. It's just her hypothesis. We don't really know why she thinks so.

tanes256

@akistotle said:

I don't think there should be a clear line between these two types since causation/correlation describe hypothesis/phenomenon.

Thank you, @akistotle! This is exactly what I was looking for! This makes sense. I’m headed to watch the video explanations you provided now!

@keets993 said:

For causation and correlation it would have to be two or more simultaneous things happening and the author generalizing a relationship between the two.

@keets993 thank you! This helps. I’m not sure why this got so muddled for me. Now I can’t wait until my lunch break to drill a few questions! Lol