Q25 - Despite a steady decrease

[sumukh09]

This is a weaken question that exhibits a common flaw on the LSAT; namely a flaw of causal reasoning.

As a refresher, if the argument concludes A caused B while the premises merely suggest that two things are occurring simultaneously, then your instincts should be to reveal the flaw by asking:

a) can the effect occur without the cause?
b) can some other thing have an impact on both A and B?
c) can the effect in fact be the cause?
d) or could both A and B have no impact on one another

The argument in this stim states that because A and B are occurring simultaneously then it can be concluded that A causes B.

Answer choices:

A) is incorrect because it doesn't address the causal relationship
B) is the correct answer because if taken to be true, then this shows that effect can occur without the stated cause; exactly what a) says above
C) is incorrect because it's irrelevant and does not address the causal relationship
D) is out of scope
E) is irrelevant

[ohthatpatrick]

Awesome synopsis! You should consider teaching this stuff.

I just want to flesh out some of your explanations, in case people were tempted/confused by them.

(A) If anything, this strengthens the theory. We might think that if the number of people using TV as their primary source of info is rising, then those people might have less reason to read daily newspapers. We have to add a few of our own assumptions to make this answer truly relevant to the causal relationship being examined, but even if we do stretch (A), it goes WITH the causal claim, not against it.

(C) and (E) are both discussing the DURATION of time spent reading a newspaper or having a TV on. However, the info we're dealing with is evaluating whether there's a relationship between the % of people who watch TV daily and the % of people who read the newspaper daily. Since this info only concerns WHETHER you watch TV or read the paper daily, the DURATION of how long you watch/read is totally irrelevant.

(D), like (A), would strengthen the argument, if we were to add some typical assumptions ... (D) makes it sound like the more you watch TV, the harder it is to get anything out of reading printed info. So that would FIT the story of "the more ppl watch TV, the less they read the paper".

Nice work!

[mharr]

I have a question about negating the cause, increased TV watching (~TV). I know this is a causal relationship question, but I was thinking about the contrapositive of ~TV.

Could a contrapositive of ~TV be:

1.) People who did not increase their TV watching (their TV watching remained the same).

2.) Another way to state ~TV: people who decreased their TV watching.

3.) Last way to state ~TV: people who did not watch TV.

Answer choice B discusses #3. My question is, could #1 or #2 been correct answers as well?

[WaltGrace1983]

I have a question about negating the cause, increased TV watching (~TV). I know this is a causal relationship question, but I was thinking about the contrapositive of ~TV.

Could a contrapositive of ~TV be:

1.) People who did not increase their TV watching (their TV watching remained the same).

2.) Another way to state ~TV: people who decreased their TV watching.

3.) Last way to state ~TV: people who did not watch TV.

Answer choice B discusses #3. My question is, could #1 or #2 been correct answers as well?

To my knowledge, you cannot have a "contrapositive" of one element, TV. You can "negate" TV but a contrapositive I believe only applies to causal relations, like A --> B. However, these are very explicit and true causal relations. To get a contrapositive, you cannot merely say "We THINK A causes B so, therefore, if no B then it must be no A!"

I think you may be referring to a negation. However, to answer this question, I would have to know what "TV" means. If "TV" means "increased television viewing" then the negation of that would be "NOT increased television viewing," aka "the same amount or a decrease amount of television viewing."