... First of all, a weaker correlation does not necessarily mean a ... 't know what the original correlation even is. Secondly, there' ... information that says the weaker correlation was due to the fact ... and assuming that the weaker correlation was due to the presence ...
... using arrows to express a causal relationship. Arrows are a shorthand ... if there is a purported causal relationship in which it is ... B, you can strengthen this causal relationship by showing when A ... does not prove that a causal relationship in fact exists, but ...
I have found (many times) on LR section: one being particularly more difficult than the other eg : I have -1 -2 on one of the LRs and -5 -6 on another . Not sure if this is merely a correlation or if there is a causation there.
This is actually a somewhat common flaw on the lsat. The problem with it is that it deals with extremes without considering the majority that fall in the middle. Just like @c.janson35 said, it could be a U shape correlation.
What would the necessary assumption be? I already perceived the correlation-causation flaw but couldn't fit that as an answer choice in this necessary assumption question type
... ’t think there’s a correlation/causation flaw in this stimulus ... other words, D shows a correlation between overconfidence and attempting to ... a business. (Remember: while a correlation does not imply causation, it ...
Accounts playable is right, most of the causation weaken/strengthening questions that i have come across draw some correlation between two things and then make a casual conclusion that you either need to best weaken or best strengthen.
@alexandergreene93 said:
It's not a good idea to look at people like Lloyd Blankfein or David Rubinstein and conclude that getting a JD will put you in a similar position.