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

What's the difference between "All because..." and "Only because..."?

munderlarkstmunderlarkst Free Trial Member
in Logical Reasoning 16 karma
In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for the LSAT, I'm wondering what the difference is between "All because..." and "Only because...". For example: "All because the nail fell out, the war was lost" vs. "Only because the nail fell out, the war was lost." Or, the example could be, say, "All because of you, the war was lost" vs. "Only because of you, the war was lost", etc.

My confusion is that "All" introduces a sufficient condition, whereas "Only" introduces a necessary condition. But, the sentences seem to have the same meaning. What's the difference between "All" and "Only" in the examples above? Is the use of the word "All" just simply wrong when applying it to only one person (or thing), and such an example would never be found on a LSAT (even if people say "All because of you..." in everyday, real life)?

Also, I am confused by the word "because" in the above examples. I know "because" introduces a premise (which I think of a premise as being akin to a sufficient condition, or at least as an antecedent), but does "because" introduce necessary or sufficient conditions, as well?

Thanks!
Michael
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    If I'm correct, I think "all because" is just a colloquial use of the term and not something that would be found on the test.
  • LSATdogfmlLSATdogfml Free Trial Member
    62 karma
    @c.janson35 yes I think so too. But since OP successfully induced my paranoia, Imma try to figure this out.

    All because = solely because. Sounds like sufficient condition to me. The presentation, however, can be made more clear. I.E. All because of you the war is lost => All because you failed the war is lost.

    If you fail => war is lost. Yup sufficient condition
  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    @lsatdogfml in general, I don't think it's appropriate to assign sufficiency to a causal relationship. It's not something I would diagram. A cause and effect relationship isn't identical to a conditional relationship, so imposing conditionality onto causality wouldn't be entirely correct.
  • PacificoPacifico Alum Inactive ⭐
    8021 karma
    @c.janson35 said:
    in general, I don't think it's appropriate to assign sufficiency to a causal relationship. It's not something I would diagram. A cause and effect relationship isn't identical to a conditional relationship, so imposing conditionality onto causality wouldn't be entirely correct.
    So much this ^^^^

    To recap:

    Things that don't imply causation/causality:
    1) Correlation
    2) Conditionality
  • munderlarkstmunderlarkst Free Trial Member
    edited September 2015 16 karma
    Thank you everyone for your input! That is all very helpful...

    Michael
  • LoraxManLoraxMan Alum Member
    180 karma
    Agreed, all because indicates causality
  • LoraxManLoraxMan Alum Member
    180 karma
    @Pacifico said:
    Things that don't imply causation/causality:
    1) Correlation
    2) Conditionality
    @Pacifico if i remember correctly, sometimes correlation is used in a strengthen question as an answer choice to strengthen a causal relationship.
  • PacificoPacifico Alum Inactive ⭐
    8021 karma
    @LoraxMan said:
    if i remember correctly, sometimes correlation is used in a strengthen question as an answer choice to strengthen a causal relationship.
    This is true, but you have to remember that it is only because of other evidence being presented (i.e.-other premises). Correlative relationships can pretty much always help you make a case for something, they just can't make the case on their own.

    If you DNA test a crime scene and there's a 99% probability that it was John Doe, that still leaves 1 time out of 100 that it could be someone else (just based on DNA alone, and if you draw a large enough sample of people, it is not that helpful). However, if John Doe was seen leaving the scene of the crime just moments afterwards, then those two factors together will greatly increase the likelihood that it was John Doe.
  • LoraxManLoraxMan Alum Member
    180 karma
    Right understood. The strengthening question I am referencing I got wrong - so just wanted to flag this potential issue for others. Even though correlation alone is not good evidence for causation, it can strengthen a causal relationship presented in the argument stem.
  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    Exactly right @LoraxMan. Correlation alone can never be used to prove causation, but a strong correlation can go a long way to help strengthen an established causal relationship.
Sign In or Register to comment.