Correlation Question

[ec623ec623]

Is it possible for correlation relationships to have sufficient/necessary indicator words? Or if it has sufficient/necessary indicator words it must be considered a causal relationship?

For example: When I wear jeans, I often tie my hair.

Would this automatically mean that if I don't tie my hair, I'm (probably?) not wearing jeans? Or is it only conditional if I omit the "often" in the original sentence so its a certain situation? So in that case, it's okay for correlations to have sufficient/necessary indicators. What I'm trying to say in the original sentence is that me wearing jeans and tying my hair goes together frequently, but not always.

Could you also please clarify if sufficient & necessary is even considered causation?

Apologies if this isn't clear - I'm probably making up complex situations and confusing myself. What I'm mainly trying to figure out is the first question in this post. Thank you!

[ec623ec623]

A broader question I have branching off of my initial post is: Can conditional statements be causal relationships/correlation relationships?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi EC,

A few quick thoughts:

1. They certainly can and do throw in causal language into some conditional relationships; that doesn't necessarily mean it becomes all causal and never conditional. But usually they don't make solving the problem reliant on making any distinction there. they know it's not clear and so avoid it as being the crux of the solution.

2. Your example, for LSAT purposes, is conditional and not at all causal. I could rewrite it as:

• When I wear jeans, most of the time I tie my hair.
  
  Wear Jeans Tie hair most of time

In that sentence, then, the necessary condition is tying your hair more than half the time when you wear jeans (which is what "most" means). That's not saying it's specifically correlated, just that it has to happen enough of the time to meet the necessary condition standard.

From a contrapositive standpoint, if you don't tie your hair most of the time, then you aren't wearing jeans. So, if you didn't tie it all, you aren't wearing jeans. But note that allows for you to not tie it some of the time; that's okay under what the necessary specifies.

3. Conditionality is NOT causality. There are several distinguishing feature such as time sequence and actual causal force that separate the two. There are sections in the LRB and our course that outline this exact difference, so check those out!

4. Last, they could be both, but you don't see that often on the LSAT and they'd have to use some additional language to make it so both relationships were clearly the case.

Thanks!

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi,

When you mention "meeting the necessary condition standard", if it were simply "may tie" hair, would that not qualify?

I understand that the necessary being "most" / "rarely" would both suffice as necessary. Please may you confirm.

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

Conditional reasoning is typically about absolute certainty, Dancingbambarina. That's the whole idea behind the term "necessary condition" - it must happen, not just that it might. While we can sometimes do a conditional analysis around probability, as with the example Dave discussed, for the most part we don't. When we downgrade it even further to "might" or "may," I would recommend not using any conditional analysis.

If I go to the movies, I might get popcorn. There's no contrapositive here. There's barely any inference here! Does my getting popcorn prove anything? Does not getting it suggest anything? No to both. Does my going to the movies prove anything? No, not really, because it's still just a mere possibility that I get popcorn. Don't force these kinds of relationships into conditional frameworks.