General Question on Strenging Causal Relationship

[jonwg5121]

One of the ways to strengthen a causal relationship is to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur. I was wondering, if an answer choice showed the effect not occuring and then the cause not occuring, would it be correct?

For example: Because he was thirsty, Bill drank water. (Thirsty-->Drink Water)
To strengthen, you can show: not thirsty-->not drink water.

Can a viable choice for strengthening an argument also be not drink water-->not thirsty?

Thanks for taking the time to help.

[David Boyle]

One of the ways to strengthen a causal relationship is to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur. I was wondering, if an answer choice showed the effect not occuring and then the cause not occuring, would it be correct?

For example: Because he was thirsty, Bill drank water. (Thirsty-->Drink Water)
To strengthen, you can show: not thirsty-->not drink water.

Can a viable choice for strengthening an argument also be not drink water-->not thirsty?

Thanks for taking the time to help.

Hello,

It might, a tiny bit (sometimes, as a sort of "could be true"); it even sounds like a contrapositive, when you think about it. Of course, conditional reasoning and causal reasoning are not the same, but sometimes, there is an overlap. (E.g., "Fire always burns stuff" could be considered both causal and conditional.)
Coming from the "weakening" side for a moment, for contrast: if the effect does occur, but the cause doesn't, then you pretty much know that the chain of causality isn't working.
Back to your particular question: if you have "no drink" "no thirsty", that doesn't actually show a definite causal chain; there may be other supervening factors, e.g., "there is no water to drink", or "Bill is dead at the moment", etc., which don't prove or disprove anything about thirstiness causing drinking.

David