Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT62.S4.Q19: I thought the LSAT only dealt with causal relationships in terms of a singular cause

Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
edited October 19 in Logical Reasoning 1855 karma

I thought on the LSAT, it was one cause per effect, not multiple causes per effect. Why is the correct answer acceptable in this instance? Shouldn't bulging disks be the ONLY cause of pain and not one of multiple potential factors? And I'm also confused by the use of the term "sufficient." Is this "sufficient" as in the causal sufficient (enough to cause pain) or the conditional sufficient or both?

Bulging disks---> pain

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-19/

Comments

  • cwlawlawcwlawlaw Alum Member
    29 karma

    No, I've never applied the idea of 'only one cause per effect' unless the argument is specifically stating that is the case. Smoking cigarettes is a cause of cancer, but we could clearly see the flaw in an argument that claimed that smoking is the only cause of cancer. Arguments often use situations that happen to include 'one cause per effect', but I wouldn't say this is an absolute rule and is more for the sake of not making arguments extremely complex.

    And your use of sufficient in both cases are pretty much the same.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    1855 karma

    Why is A problematic?

  • defeatRCdefeatRC Yearly Member
    edited October 19 48 karma

    @Ashley2018 said:
    Why is A problematic?

    Hope my logic path is correct.

    Because A is talking about " may nonetheless have that effect" but in the argument we are talking about even though half group has back pain, they shouldn't it was caused by slipped disks.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    edited October 19 1855 karma

    Well it says “May” so it’s not an absolute.

  • defeatRCdefeatRC Yearly Member
    48 karma

    Right, "may have that effect", but the 2nd half group was pretty sure they do not feel back pain.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    1855 karma

    So bulging disks is NOT sufficient to feel pain, according to the stimulus? What I’m confused about is the first half: it says you can feel pain without bulging disks but isn’t the stimulus describing having bulging disks but without pain? So it’s like in reverse

  • defeatRCdefeatRC Yearly Member
    48 karma

    Slipped disks should have caused back pain.
    A large group of ppl said they didn't feel any pain. Researchers found half of them actually have slipped disks.
    Surprise!
    How come they have the abnormal disks but feeling nothing?

    Conclusion: look at that half of group, we can see that people who have slipped disks and who feel pain should not attribute the cause to the disks.

    Analysis: The factor itself may be NOT sufficient to feel pain, but it may still have impacts on your back pain.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Monthly Member
    1855 karma

    But what is the first half of A saying? is what I typed earlier accurate?

Sign In or Register to comment.