Valid Causality - Does it Exist (on LSAT)?

richietrentie

Subject says it all. I am hypersensitive to noting that several events occurring together is always correlative (yet often mistakenly construed by authors as causal), but I am wondering whether this will ever come back to haunt me.

I suppose that more specifically, I am referring to flaw questions. Tangibly, I want to make sure that whenever two (or more) phenomena are said to occur, and an author draws a conclusion based on those phenomena somehow being associated, I can be sure that this is a mistake because it is concluding causality based on events that haven't been shown to necessarily be causally connected.

Is it ever the case that when two (or more) events are said to have occurred in a premise that they are, in fact, necessarily causally connected, and so any conclusion that assumes such is fine? This would mean that the flaw lies elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.

ENTJ

You probably know this already but I'll write it out for argument's sake:

Valid
Causation--> Correlation
/Correlation--> /Causation

Invalid
Correlation-->Causation
/Causation-->/Correlation

Do you have a specific LSAT question that you're referencing to? If so, can you post it? Thanks.

AlenaLSAT

Very good question. I've read somewhere that any argument asserting casual relationship is inherently flawed from philosophical viewpoint.