In the LSAT world, when a cause and effect statement appears as the conclusion, the
conclusion is flawed. In the real world that may not be the case because a preponderance of evidence can be gathered or visual evidence can be used to prove a relationship.
Causal statements can be found in the premise or conclusion of an argument. If
the causal statement is the conclusion, then the reasoning is flawed. If the causal
statement is the premise, then the argument may be flawed, but not because of
the causal statement. Because of this difference, one of the critical issues in
determining whether flawed causal reasoning is present is identifying where in
the argument the causal assertion is made. The classic mistaken cause and effect
reasoning we will refer to throughout this book occurs when a causal assertion
is made in the conclusion, or the conclusion presumes a causal relationship. Let
us examine the difference between an argument with a causal premise and one
with a casual conclusion.
This is an argument with a causal conclusion:
Premise: In North America, people drink a lot of milk.
Premise: There is a high frequency of cancer in North America.
Conclusion: Therefore, drinking milk causes cancer.
In this case, the author takes two events that occur together and concludes that
one causes the other. This conclusion is in error for the reasons discussed on the
first page of this chapter.
If a causal claim is made in the premises, however, then no causal reasoning
error exists in the argument (of course, the argument may be flawed in other
ways). As mentioned previously, the makers of the LSAT tend to allow
premises to go unchallenged (they are more concerned with the reasoning that
follows from a premise) and it is considered acceptable for an author to begin
his argument by stating a causal relationship and then continuing from there:
Premise: Drinking milk causes cancer.
Premise: The residents of North America drink a lot of milk.
Conclusion: Therefore, in North America there is a high frequency of
cancer among the residents.
The second example is considered valid reasoning because the author takes a
causal principle and follows it to its logical conclusion. Generally, causal
reasoning occurs in a format similar to the first example, but there are LSAT
problems similar to the second example.
conclusion is flawed. In the real world that may not be the case because a preponderance of evidence can be gathered or visual evidence can be used to prove a relationship.
Causal statements can be found in the premise or conclusion of an argument. If
the causal statement is the conclusion, then the reasoning is flawed. If the causal
statement is the premise, then the argument may be flawed, but not because of
the causal statement. Because of this difference, one of the critical issues in
determining whether flawed causal reasoning is present is identifying where in
the argument the causal assertion is made. The classic mistaken cause and effect
reasoning we will refer to throughout this book occurs when a causal assertion
is made in the conclusion, or the conclusion presumes a causal relationship. Let
us examine the difference between an argument with a causal premise and one
with a casual conclusion.
This is an argument with a causal conclusion:
Premise: In North America, people drink a lot of milk.
Premise: There is a high frequency of cancer in North America.
Conclusion: Therefore, drinking milk causes cancer.
In this case, the author takes two events that occur together and concludes that
one causes the other. This conclusion is in error for the reasons discussed on the
first page of this chapter.
If a causal claim is made in the premises, however, then no causal reasoning
error exists in the argument (of course, the argument may be flawed in other
ways). As mentioned previously, the makers of the LSAT tend to allow
premises to go unchallenged (they are more concerned with the reasoning that
follows from a premise) and it is considered acceptable for an author to begin
his argument by stating a causal relationship and then continuing from there:
Premise: Drinking milk causes cancer.
Premise: The residents of North America drink a lot of milk.
Conclusion: Therefore, in North America there is a high frequency of
cancer among the residents.
The second example is considered valid reasoning because the author takes a
causal principle and follows it to its logical conclusion. Generally, causal
reasoning occurs in a format similar to the first example, but there are LSAT
problems similar to the second example.
No comments:
Post a Comment