How do we approach anti-causal arguments? I used to believe that I can just simply reverse the way I weaken correlation-causation arguments in order to weaken the argument that denies a causal relationship based on a correlation/phenomenon. In other words, I'd establish covariation between the cause and the effect in order to argue there IS a causality. However, I also noticed that often LSAT tests those anti-causal arguments from a false comparison perspective, in which the right answer weakens the anti-causal conclusion by suggesting that the groups in comparison (provided as the evidence of the author's conclusion) have different starting points and thus pointing out an invalid comparison.
For example, in PT 20.S1.Q12 and PT 45.S1.Q12, we weaken the argument by addressing the covariation (when the cause is present, the effect is present or when the cause is absent, the effect is also absent), just like we do in classic causal arguments.
In contrast, in PT 58.S1.Q11, PT73.S4.Q12, and PT64.S1.113, we rather attack the argument by suggesting that the groups being compared to each other have different initial reference points, meaning the author's comparison is flawed.
So, in short, I am confused about how I should approach the anti-causal arguments due to the difference discussed above. When I have causal arguments, I know that I must look for an answer that addresses an alternative explanation or the plausibility of the author's explanation. But when the argument is anti-causal, it seems like LSAT tests us from more varied directions. I would appreciate any feedback or advice from instructors.
Thanks so much!
