Causal relationships, by its nature, I believe indicates their biconditionality.
my question is about alternate causes.
Say that A causes B.
But it can also be that C causes B.
Does this fact, that C causes B, necessarily rule out the fact that A can also cause B? That is, if C and A do not necessarily hurt each other in the argument (which we should imply if it doesn't state that it does), then can we imply that even without A, we can have B occur with C?
I also want to recognize whether the concept of alternate cause necessarily brings about a flaw in the argument.
Thank you!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- hyk1310
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 20
- Joined: May 26th, 2016
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: biconditionality of causal relationships
I would suggest decoupling causality and conditional logic.
The former is messy shades of gray. The latter is black and white.
I would NOT call causal relationships conditional, and certainly not biconditional.
There will be some times when LSAT presents us with a conditional or biconditional idea, and we think, "That's kinda causal."
But when LSAT presents us with a causal idea, we don't ever need to try to make it conditional.
If A causes B, that definitely does NOT rule out the possibility that C causes B as well.
Alternate causes weaken an argument if the author's conclusion was overly confident that "A" was the cause.
EXAMPLE
John is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.
An alternate cause would weaken this argument by highlighting the excessive confidence the author had in his conclusion.
"John's dog died this morning".
This doesn't prove he's crying over his dead dog. And he might still be cutting onions. But if you're a jury, and one lawyer is trying to convince you that John was cutting onions, on the basis of him crying, then the other lawyer could introduce a lot of doubt by giving you a DIFFERENT way to explain the same crying.
If a conclusion is just saying that "one thing CAN cause another", then alternate causes cannot possibly hurt that argument.
EXAMPLE
John is crying. Thus, he may be cutting onions.
That's a perfectly reasonable argument.
The former is messy shades of gray. The latter is black and white.
I would NOT call causal relationships conditional, and certainly not biconditional.
There will be some times when LSAT presents us with a conditional or biconditional idea, and we think, "That's kinda causal."
But when LSAT presents us with a causal idea, we don't ever need to try to make it conditional.
If A causes B, that definitely does NOT rule out the possibility that C causes B as well.
Alternate causes weaken an argument if the author's conclusion was overly confident that "A" was the cause.
EXAMPLE
John is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.
An alternate cause would weaken this argument by highlighting the excessive confidence the author had in his conclusion.
"John's dog died this morning".
This doesn't prove he's crying over his dead dog. And he might still be cutting onions. But if you're a jury, and one lawyer is trying to convince you that John was cutting onions, on the basis of him crying, then the other lawyer could introduce a lot of doubt by giving you a DIFFERENT way to explain the same crying.
If a conclusion is just saying that "one thing CAN cause another", then alternate causes cannot possibly hurt that argument.
EXAMPLE
John is crying. Thus, he may be cutting onions.
That's a perfectly reasonable argument.
2 posts Page 1 of 1