Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Causation in Relation to Weaken/Strengthen

J ArandaJ Aranda Member
in Logical Reasoning 48 karma

So I’m really struggling with these causation questions, not because I'm getting the wrong answer, but because I’m confused about Causation strategy, and when to use it. So I have 2 questions.

1st one is, When approaching general weakening/strengthening questions, that are not causal, we approach these with the strategies JY has laid out for us, in those lessons, and not as a causation question, correct? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between general weakening strengthening/weakening questions? What tips would you recommend?

2nd question is, I'm having trouble in applying the causation strategy to questions. I just did the Synesthesiacs question, under the Causation questions in the syllabus (LSAT Preptest 34, Section 2, Question 12). I asked this in the question just now, but I'm hoping I'll get more replies here.

So I hovered over A and B. A to me felt like it most weakened it, and I wanted to pick it, but to me it didn’t really feel like I was following the structure of how to attack these. In it, this question introduces a data set, in the form of research, with some people. Don’t know if I should have construed that as co-incidence or correlation, since some is kinda vague, so I went with Correlation. Since it’s a data set, I looked for an answer that introduces a competing data set. And B was the only one. B didn’t really seem like it weakened it, but hey, I followed the structure (or did I?). If I had followed the Co-incidence rules, then I would have arrived at A, since it is a competing explanation. Is that where I screwed up?

If not, could someone please clarify for me what I’m doing wrong. Do I follow this strategy down to a T? It feels like when I go off intuition I do better, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    edited April 2017 3112 karma

    Hi!

    So I think the answer to your first question is that it depends. Some situations parallel directly to the lessons and others don't. This is why we want to understand the underlying philosophy of the lessons but not take them too literally. We want to be flexible in our understanding because if we are not, we are going to hurt ourselves when things don't match up directly. So yes while a understanding what JY is saying immensely important, it is even more important to understand why JY is saying what he is saying. So for example, let's just say an argument concludes A causes B. We know from the lessons that there are 3 other possibilities. But this is not enough. We have to understand why this is the case.

    I will get to your second question shortly!

  • J ArandaJ Aranda Member
    48 karma

    Awesome thank you

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    Hi again! Sorry for the delay!

    I think your approach to this question kind of gets to the core of the problem. To me, after my first read, I really don't think this is that bad of an argument. But I don't see it as correlation/causation. I don't try to make it fit in to any framework. I mean, sure the conclusion here is a mere possibility, aka it is their hypothesis. It is something that could explain the situation or phenomenon. But does it? We don't know. What if it is something else? My anticipation was something along the lines of this, but I took it one step further. What if these people are actually just crazy? Seems weird right? But it isn't. How many people do you know that taste blue when they taste a banana? I don't know any. So maybe this is something that a crazy person would claim. It seems so weird that anyone would say this and I think that this is a better explanation than the one that they give.

    This is what answer choice A is basically saying. We are saying that their systems are impaired (a nice way of saying they are crazy). If they systems are impaired, it still gets to the underlying argument that this group of people is not a normal group of people. This answer choice is providing a competing alternative hypothesis. Sure, it may be true that their senses have no boundaries. But what if the reason they taste blue is because they have some sort of impairment that effects their understanding of words? What if when they grew up, they were taught that colors are sensations, and things like that?

    I think the core of this question is that A offers a competing alternative hypothesis. Understanding that there is a different potential explanation for something is one of the most frequent methods I use for answering weakening questions. Sure the stimuli explain something one way. But what if this other way is able to explain the same exact circumstances differently, or perhaps even better than the hypothesis does?

    Just to touch on B briefly, we are told that their senses cross boundaries. This doesn't mean that they have more senses. It is just that their senses overlap. This has absolutely no bearing on the argument and that is why this answer choice doesn't weaken.

    Hope this helps!

  • J ArandaJ Aranda Member
    48 karma

    Awesome thank you so much for your explanation, that did help.

  • d__villad__villa Alum Member
    98 karma

    Very helpful! I was also confused on when to apply the causation strategy.. I was approaching all weaken questions with the initial idea to weaken the support between the premise and conclusion. This strategy seems to be more specific but will allow me to quickly identify incorrect answer choices depending on the type of causation question.

Sign In or Register to comment.