Causal Degree Questions

[tmanmw2]

Hello! I have a few questions on causal degree that I could not find on other forum posts, so I am adding here.

My first question concerns causal degree during inference/most strongly supported questions. I have this simple example stimulus/question in my head:

A causes B. B causes C.
Q: Which of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?

If we have an answer choice that says "If less A, then B will occur less," would that be correct? And what about an answer choice of "If less A, then C will occur less," would that be correct as well?

And then if an answer choice said "If less A, then NO B would occur", would that be wrong because less cause does NOT eliminate the effect?

Finally, if we change this stimulus to make it a weaken Q and have it say "A causes B. B causes C. Therefore, C is good" (random conclusion), would an answer choice that said "If less A, then less B" not be a good right answer contender because it is already assumed that less A leads to less B (in addition to it being off-topic to the conclusion )?

Thank you!

[Dana D]

Hey tmanmw2,

If A causes B, that fact remains true regardless of the degree to which this occurs. For example, if increased oxygen in the blood causes increased athletic performance, that relationship holds true no matter what. A slight increase in oxygen still causes increased athletic performance - perhaps less so than if there was a large increase in oxygen, but there's still an increase.

The test is concerned with your understanding of cause and effect relationships in general. To that end, the degree of improvement on athletic performance isn't important - as long as there is some improvement. What would be signficant is if there was increased oxygen and no improved athletic performance - in other words, a cause and no effect.

It would not in any way weaken this causal relationship to show that you need lots and lots of oxygen to get only marginal increases in athletic performance or that less oxygen yeilds less improvement, because the causal relationship still exists. The only way to weaken this link is to show the cause occured with no effect, the effect occured without the cause, the temporal relationship is switched (the effect happens before the cause), show there is an alternative cause, or challenge the data establishing the cause/effect relationship.

Does that make sense?

[tmanmw2]

Thank you for your quick reply Dana! Yes, that makes sense. My question focused more on mechanics of causal logic. Just to confirm, in your example, would a valid inference (and the right answer to a most strongly supported question) be "less oxygen in the blood leads to less athletic performance"? I am recalling one inference question (can't remember exactly, did it awhile ago) that used this format of: A causes B stimulus, and then provides an answer choice that says less A leads to less B . I just want to make sure my causal understanding is in tip-top shape going into this September LSAT

[Dana D]

Hey tmanmw2,

I think more in terms of a strengthening question, that would be a likely correct answer, because it is strengthening the inference of the cause and effect relationship between oxygen and athletic performance.

However, the type of question matters - I think generally, "less oxygen, less performance" could be a correct answer for a most strongly supported question, but that would be more strongly supported if the stimulus also established that there was a proportional cause and effect relationship. It would also depend on the other answer choices.

Hope that helps!