A confusion between conditional logic and causation

jyang72

Hi 7sagers, I just had a confusion cause by PT 68 section 2 question 24. JY's explanation is if Hormone causes Stress, then reducing Hormone can reduce stress. However, I always think if A causes B, then it works like conditional logic A--->B, \A does not mean \B. Is A causes B necessarily equal to A--->B? Thank you so much.

Accounts Playable

Conditional logic and causality are two different things. For one thing, causality has a time/temporal aspect to it. For X to cause Y to happen, the cause (X) must have occurred before the effect (Y). Conditional logic does not imply this time aspect.

In everyday language, it is very easy to get the two confused (and it often happens), but in the LSAT world, the test is always clear about whether the question is dealing with conditional logic or causality. This is very helpful because errors of reasoning dealing with conditional logic (i.e. sufficiency/necessity conflation) are very different from causal flaws (a common third cause, spurious correlation, or reverse cause). This is essential for trying to think of what the answer could be before reading the answer choices.

jyang72

Thank you Bro!!! @"Accounts Playable"

poohbear

bumping this because I think this is super important! The difference between causation and conditionality has always been a bit fuzzy for me but @"Accounts Playable" you made the distinction super clear! Thank you!