Does A correlated with B = /A correlated with /B?

Noise DogoodNoise Dogood Core Member
edited July 2020 in Logical Reasoning 240 karma

I’m led to this question because of these steps (below) that I took lol. Correct me at any point if there is a flaw in how I went about it!

In 72-2-25, /A and /B strengthens A cause B. We want to strengthen the argument’s assumption by showing that A causes B (buy online cause /use car), so we say /A and /B (/buy online and use car). This makes sense to me intuitively because the CAC is saying that /cause correlated with /effect, which strengthens the relationship between cause and effect.

OK SO, IF /A ← correlated→ /B strengthens A -cause-> B (what we have above - no cause and no effect strengthens cause → effect ), does that mean:

A -cause-> B, which implies A ← correlated→ B, implies /A ← correlated → /B?

And if the answer is yes or no, is there a cleaner theoretical reason why?

*footnote: I shortened direct mail advertising (buy phone or online) from 72-2-25 to just “buy online” to focus purely on the theory part. From 72-2-25: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-2-question-25/, but this idea has also come up for me as a question in other causation q's.

Comments

  • NerfThisNerfThis Alum Member
    edited July 2020 173 karma

    I think the answer would be yes only if there was causation on top of the correlation.

    For example, if there was a correlation between eating meat (A) and heart disease (B) and studies have proven eating meat does increase rates of heart disease, then I believe in this case /A is correlated with /B.

    However, if wasn't the case there was causation and the A, B correlation was in fact just mere coincident, I don't think it would imply a /A correlation with /B as a change in one (to zero in this case) wouldn't affect the other.

  • Noise DogoodNoise Dogood Core Member
    edited July 2020 240 karma

    Ah that makes sense. Then let's say we don't have a correlation yet, and we want to establish one. We have some premise (let's say A is coincidental with B ). We want to claim A is correlated with B.

    Would saying /A correlated with /B strengthen (not necessarily have to imply) that A is correlated with B?

    Because if what we said earlier that A correlated with B doesn't imply /A correlated with /B, then the answer to that question would be no? But intuitively it seems like yes, it does strengthen.

  • jegosi215jegosi215 Member
    97 karma

    That would be invalid

    A-->B Valid
    B-->A Invalid
    /A--->/B Invalid
    /B--->/A Valid

    *You're better of just memorizing these rules

  • n.placen.place Free Trial Member
    edited July 2020 76 karma

    If two things are correlated, yes, they are both correlated with each other. Co- means jointly, relate, well you know what that means. Their is some kind of numerical relationship between both of them.

    A positive correlation between A and B means that generally, when there is more of A, there is more of B, or when there is less of A, there is less of B.

    Just remember that correlation **NEVER ** equals causation.

    That being said, the question you mentioned does not involve correlation in choosing the correct answer. The argument does claim a cause, however. The idea is that, because cars cause pollution, ordering from home decreases pollution because it doesn't involve the use of a car to go get that thing.

    B strengthens it because it suggests that these were things that people already wanted, and would have in fact used their cars to go get those things.

Sign In or Register to comment.