LRB Page 203

[beanie]

Hi,

On Page 203, http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/content/ ... erpt_2.pdf
the second paragraph states that "When an LSAT speaker concludes that one occurrence caused another, that speaker also assumes that the stated cause is the only possible cause of the effect and that consequently the stated cause will always produce the effect. "

Does that mean when we have causality "A causes B" on the LSAT (not in the real world), the LSAT assumes that A is both the sufficient (the stated cause is the only possible cause) and the necessary (the stated cause will always produce) cause of B?

Thank you

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Beanie!

I would recommend just leaving the conditional reasoning out of your understanding of causality. The two are easily confused, and trying to contemplate the logic in that way just muddies the waters considerably.

I know that sentence you are quoting uses some conditional terms, but it's really there to highlight just how bold of an assumption the LSAT authors make when presenting causal arguments. The key is to recognize how far the LSAT authors go when making these claims. It is that boldness that makes the arguments so inherently weak and open to attack. That is really the key understanding with causal reasoning.

Hope that helps!