PT69.S1.Q24 - In an effort to reduce underage drinking

The Noodley

Premises: 1) a survey of 17-year-old has found that many who do not drink report having taken a pledge to refrain from drinking; 2) almost who drink report having never taken such a pledge

I wonder whether what these premises establish is a mere association (some weaker form of correlation) instead of a correlation???

Admin note: added link
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-24/

ChaimtheGreat

I guess I am a little confused as to what you mean. I think the LSAT principle of correlation not causation applies here; I am not sure I would complicate it by establishing levels of correlation. There seems to be a correlation with the pledge and lack of drinking (not causation). Is your point that the correlation is so weak we should call it something else? If that helps go for it! But I think it might confuse me personally.

Bamboosprout

I think it's better to go with official definitions here. When you see any data that is related in some way, then it can be call correlation. I agree with Chaim, in that I see no reason to add another word to describe what is occurring in this stimulus. What do you see as the benefit of calling it 'association'? Correlation works, as long as we know that it isn't a causal relationship, as the conclusion claims.
JY's definitions would say that what is below correlation is coincidence, or no relation.

The Noodley

@ChaimtheGreat @Bamboosprout thank you for your responses! We usually see, for example, A drinker is more likely to have a heart attack than a non-drinker; I know it is a correlation; I was just confused whether the stimulus also suggests the same thing. Now @Bamboosprout explains it clearly here. I did remember there are two parallel flaws questions are about pre-correlation (J.Y used the word); I do not have them right now; I was just thinking whether the situation applies here as well

Bamboosprout

@"Testing..." said:
@ChaimtheGreat @Bamboosprout thank you for your responses! We usually see, for example, A drinker is more likely to have a heart attack than a non-drinker; I know it is a correlation; I was just confused whether the stimulus also suggests the same thing. Now @Bamboosprout explains it clearly here. I did remember there are two parallel flaws questions are about pre-correlation (J.Y used the word); I do not have them right now; I was just thinking whether the situation applies here as well

I think you got it. The stimulus is definitely suggesting that. It may not be a strong correlation, but it is definitely saying there is one, which it then uses as support to make a claim about causation. As for the pre-correlation questions, I cannot be sure, but it probably is talking about a case of coincidence, where there are not enough samples to suggest a correlation.

The Noodley

@Bamboosprout said:

@"Testing..." said:
@ChaimtheGreat @Bamboosprout thank you for your responses! We usually see, for example, A drinker is more likely to have a heart attack than a non-drinker; I know it is a correlation; I was just confused whether the stimulus also suggests the same thing. Now @Bamboosprout explains it clearly here. I did remember there are two parallel flaws questions are about pre-correlation (J.Y used the word); I do not have them right now; I was just thinking whether the situation applies here as well

I think you got it. The stimulus is definitely suggesting that. It may not be a strong correlation, but it is definitely saying there is one, which it then uses as support to make a claim about causation. As for the pre-correlation questions, I cannot be sure, but it probably is talking about a case of coincidence, where there are not enough samples to suggest a correlation.

thank you!!