Recognizing Causal Arguments Without Indicator Words

farooq.chaudhry3

Hey guys, does anyone have any suggestions on recognizing when an argument is causal when it does not include key words like "responsible for", "resulted in", or straight up "caused"?

I'm seeing question 22 on on Section 2 in PT 73 being identified as causal, and I totally missed it. Wanted to see if anyone has a good way to break these things down. Thanks!

DivineRaze

@"farooq.chaudhry3" I'm not sure what you mean by it being identified as causal. I remember this question i've done it many of times but its essentially a strengthening question and the correct answer supports the hypothesis by ruling out the possibility that they bred with the salmon to make it more likely that they adapted by themselves. The overall picture of the argument I guess you could see a causal relationship for them having genetically adapted to their environment being caused by the isolation, but I don't think focus on the causality is to be stressed in this question per se. I would just recommend focusing on the connection between conclusion and the support to figure out whats really going on. Sorry if that wasn't helpful but I just thought i'd give my two cents on the matter.

farooq.chaudhry3

Hey @DivineRaze , thanks for that! I mentioned the causal thing because I was looking into explanations for this question, and Powerscore identified it as causal, and the question being causal was their key to solving this problem it seemed.

Your methodology and reasoning makes perfect sense, and I didn't think about the effect breeding with the native salmon would've had on the conclusion. Thanks for sharing your thought process! It helped me see from a different perspective.