Logical Reasoning Ch 6

What is causal reasoning?

Causal reasoning is simple cause and effect. A cause makes something happen, and an effect is what is made to happen by the cause. A causal argument claims a cause-and-effect relationship exists.

Do you need to diagram causal reasoning?

You don’t need to diagram causal reasoning.

What are causal indicators?

Causal indicators are words that signal you’re dealing with causal reasoning. Memorize the list of causal indicator words.

Why are causal conclusions vulnerable?

Causal conclusions are extremely loophole-vulnerable because they focus on one possible explanation while ignoring other potential causes, unless stated as a weak Possibility Conclusion, which is rare.

How do you create a loophole for a causal conclusion?

Ask, “What if one of those alternative explanations is true?” Identify other possible causes to challenge the claimed cause-and-effect relationship.

What are the Omitted Options in causal reasoning?

The three Omitted Option Loopholes for causal conclusions are:

1. No relationship between cause and effect.

2. Backwards causation (effect causes the cause).

3. A new factor causes one or both events.

What is the No Relationship loophole?

The No Relationship loophole suggests the cause and effect have no connection, occurring by coincidence. Use loopholes like:

• What if the cause happens and the effect doesn’t?

• What if the effect happens without the cause?

• What if the study, survey, experiment, or situation is flawed?

What is the Backwards Causation loophole?

The Backwards Causation loophole suggests the effect causes the claimed cause. It’s a possibility unless the cause clearly precedes the effect, in which case other Omitted Options are used.

What is the New Factor loophole?

The New Factor loophole suggests a third factor causes one or both events, unmentioned in the argument, challenging the claimed cause-and-effect relationship.

What is the difference between correlation and causation in LSAT arguments?

Correlation means two things happen together but doesn’t prove one causes the other. LSAT causal arguments often assume correlation equals causation, a flaw exploitable by Omitted Option Loopholes.

Why does the LSAT favor causal reasoning in arguments?

The LSAT uses causal reasoning because it’s easy to show correlation but hard to prove causation. Weak causal claims are full of loopholes, making them ideal for spotting flaws.