Causal reasoning vs. conditional reasoning

[miak]

Hi,

If I see a question like this on the LSAT, how would I approach it?

IF AN APPLE FALLS FROM THE TREE THEN IT MUST BE CAUSED BY A GUST OF WIND

In this statement, there are both conditional and causal reasoning. I believe that this would be a conditional statement but since there are causal indicators in the sentence, wonder how to attack the question.

Thank you.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Miak,

One of the great tools at the disposal of the test makers is the ability to blur lines and combine ideas. This is often most easily seen in LG, but they can do it anywhere. This is a good example of that. Here, you have both types of reasoning operating at once, so you don't need to treat it as one or the other; react to it by recognizing that both are present, and then move forward from there. It doesn't present any additional hardship, and as stated, the statement is pretty easy to understand to so the presence of both ideas should be easy to handle.

The key is to realize that while we talk about various forms of reasoning in isolation so as to make them as clear as possible while learning about them, not everything has to or will fall into just a nice, neat box. It gets messy sometimes, and when that happens your job is to simply recognize that it is occurring. Recognition is by far the majority of the battle! You were able to do that here, so you'd be fine

Does that make sense? Please let me know. Thanks!

[miak]

Thank you so much for your reply..

Would it be possible for you to give an example of a question and answer involving both conditional and causal reasoning along with the answer to the question and the thinking behind how you chose the correct answer.

Just want to make sure that I am on the right track.

Thank you.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Miak,

There are literally dozens and dozens of scenarios and question type combinations the test makers could make up and then use. A simple example would be a Parallel question that ask you to emulate the reasoning in the stimulus. You'd then look for something that contained both causal and conditional language, in the same general format the sentence you used.

The key—to me at least—isn't to be upset if you can't reduce everything to a single, simple idea as you read each sentence or stimulus. Although logic can allow for many simple reductions, it doesn't have to work that way. If you understand each idea in isolation, the beauty of that is that it then becomes easier to see what occurs when ideas are commingled. For example, in your sentence, I don't think the presence of two reasoning forms causes you any concern. You can look at it through either lens and understand what is being said, and that would allow you to handle any question they threw at you. And, of course, the nature of the answer choices is what determines how things really turn out in terms of difficulty.

Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Thank you so much for your reply..

Would it be possible for you to give an example of a question and answer involving both conditional and causal reasoning along with the answer to the question and the thinking behind how you chose the correct answer.

Just want to make sure that I am on the right track.

Thank you.

Hello miak,

Your own example, "IF AN APPLE FALLS FROM THE TREE THEN IT MUST BE CAUSED BY A GUST OF WIND", could be diagrammed as fall gust. That would handle the conditional, but it would also cover the causal part too, it seems. If you want to add a causal diagram, you could do it something like

C . . . . . . . . E

gust fall

There may be other hybrid causal-conditional problems too that you may encounter. E.g., something like "Since the moon is bright, the Great Pumpkin will come tonight" could reasonably be diagrammed as a conditional, bright arrive tonight. You could also do a causal diagram,

C . . . . . . . . . . . E

bright arrive tonight

There are probably many other variations; but, as Dave noted above, if you can deal with it all in a flexible way that takes the muddy realities into account, you can do well.

Hope this helps,
David

[miak]

Thank you so much. That is helpful.

[lunalondon]

Hi all,

Stumbled upon this post and thought it was really interesting.. I am wondering if the below is correct:

Say we have: If A then B

This is CONDITIONAL reasoning, i.e., if A happens to occur, then that will trigger B. This does not mean that A causes B, as B can happen without A or both can happen at the same time. B can happen without A for all we know. From what I have understood, there is no linear time frame with conditional relationships.

However, if we have: A is the cause of B

This is CAUSAL reasoning, i.e, any time B occurs, we know it was triggered by A.

Would it be correct to say that causal reasoning is, in a way, more aggressive than conditional reasoning, given that a relationship of both time and consequence is created?

Thank you PowerScore

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lunalondon,

You're on the right track, but let me clarify a little.

With conditional reasoning, you're absolutely right that there's not causality necessarily - there could be, but not automatically. In addition to the reasons you gave, it could also be that C causes A, and C also causes B, so when C happens, both A and B happen (therefore, if A, then B). The point is, we don't know anything about causal relationships between A and B, we only know correlation.

With causal reasoning, A is the cause of B doesn't necessarily mean A is the ONLY cause of B, so just because B happens doesn't mean it was triggered by A necessarily; it could be that A is the cause of B, but C can also be the cause of B. Does that make sense?

I'm not sure if I'd say one is more "aggressive" than the other. They give you different information, both powerful in their own way.