Valid Causality - Does it Exist (on LSAT)?

richietrentierichietrentie Free Trial Member
edited May 2014 in General 4 karma
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.

Comments

  • ENTJENTJ Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited May 2014 3658 karma
    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.
  • AlenaLSATAlenaLSAT Alum Member
    edited May 2014 182 karma
    Very good question. I've read somewhere that any argument asserting casual relationship is inherently flawed from philosophical viewpoint.
Sign In or Register to comment.