Positive correlation or causation?

pasu1223

I was going through PT 47 and wanted some clarification on phrases.

Section 1 Q23 of PT47 uses the phrase "accompanied by" and this indicates positive correlation.

However, in section 3 of the same test Q19 uses the phrase "associated with" and this indicates causation. Links below for the two questions.

For most phrases I find it easy to determine if it is causation or correlation, but this seemed really arbitrary. Are there other similar phrases you have found to be confusing or can someone provide insight?

Thanks in advance!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-3-question-19/
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-23/

goingfor99th

Both terms seem to be able to function as 'causal links,' by which I mean they can both indicate some sort of causal relationship between two distinct phenomena.

I will need to look at the specific questions when I'm not on my phone to know exactly what you're confused by. In the meantime, it's important to remember that causal relationships are always 'suspect' on the LSAT (and in general).

Seeking Perfection

I don't have access to the tests right now, but if it helps, causation imples correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.

Usually to support causation, timing will play a roll. So if one thing always preceeds another that starts to form support for a causal link although they could still be caused by a third thing. The main way to definitively prove causation is usually an experiment.

akistotle

Hi @pasu1223,

I'll respond to your question to my comment on the Core Curriculum as well, but I'll write here first.

While @"J.Y. Ping" drew the "cause" sign high cholesterol and heart disease in the video of PT47.S3.Q19 and I did write "cause" in my comment, I believe the phrase "associated with" indicates correlation.

I get you are confused here because the answer choice (C) seems to say there is a causal relationship between high cholesterol and heart disease. But I think the answer choice (C) actually doesn't really say that high cholesterol causes heart disease.

Instead, I believe it says that there's evidence (correlation) that high cholesterol causes heart disease and that the argument ignores this evidence.

I am tagging @Sami because she's an expert!

pasu1223

More than some LSAT conspiracy this turns out to be sloppy reading on my part, haha.

The stimulus said "associated with the development" and I totally glossed over the mention of development. Tricky part on the LSAT though to mix positive correlation and causation, but the error was completely my fault.

Apologies for thinking there was more here, and thank you very much for all of your help!

Everyone on the forums is so nice and helpful, thanks guys!

Sami

@pasu1223 said:
I was going through PT 47 and wanted some clarification on phrases.

Section 1 Q23 of PT47 uses the phrase "accompanied by" and this indicates positive correlation.

However, in section 3 of the same test Q19 uses the phrase "associated with" and this indicates causation. Links below for the two questions.

If you take the word "associated with" by itself, it just means connected with which I could see as correlation at the least. But that's not the full phrase. It actually goes on to say "associated with the development of heart disease". When put like that it makes sense to see it causally. High cholesterol is connected with the development of heart disease. The word "development" implies that people who have high cholesterol but no heart disease end up developing heart disease because of this connection.

For example,
Dogs are associated with happy households.
vs
Dogs are associated with the development of happy households.

The first one is correlation. It's possible that households that are happier tend to adopt dogs.
But the second one implies a causal relationship as dogs themselves are leading to a certain development that wasn't there before. It implies dogs are contributing to making households happy.

For most phrases I find it easy to determine if it is causation or correlation, but this seemed really arbitrary. Are there other similar phrases you have found to be confusing or can someone provide insight?

I think that's why this is a five star question. The grammar makes it a bit harder. Other stimulus like question 23 say that same relationship in words we are more often used to seeing and in less words - increases vs associated with the development of. LSAT writers have the luxury of using complex sentences to say the same thing and that makes some of these stimulus' harder.I think they are hoping we zone in on the word "associated" and forget that there is more information given related to that relationship.

Let me know if this helped.

@akistotle love you. But man don't put so much pressure on me by calling me an expert. I am not . Hug.

Sami

@pasu1223 said:
More than some LSAT conspiracy this turns out to be sloppy reading on my part, haha.

The stimulus said "associated with the development" and I totally glossed over the mention of development. Tricky part on the LSAT though to mix positive correlation and causation, but the error was completely my fault.

Apologies for thinking there was more here, and thank you very much for all of your help!

Everyone on the forums is so nice and helpful, thanks guys!

lol you wrote this while I was writing down my explanation! So I didn't see this till it was posted. I am glad you were able to figure it out.

pasu1223

@Sami it was a great explanation none the less!

I think the biggest lesson in all this, for myself, is to take some time between doing questions and writing up reasons why my thinking was incorrect. It's so easy to get tunnel vision when you stare at something for too long, haha.

akistotle

Ohhhh the “development” is the key! I’m glad you figured it out

@Sami said:
@akistotle love you. But man don't put so much pressure on me by calling me an expert. I am not . Hug.

But you are!!! (pressure lol)

Sami

@akistotle said:
Ohhhh the “development” is the key! I’m glad you figured it out

@Sami said:
@akistotle love you. But man don't put so much pressure on me by calling me an expert. I am not . Hug.

But you are!!! (pressure lol)

lol