Conditional reasoning vs. causal reasoning

[abhola]

Hi PowerScore,

I have been facing some issues with the passages that lack indicators that could help us decide between causality and conditionality.

It is stated in the causal reasoning chapter of the book that:

1. When an argument uses causality in the conclusion, the central assumption is given cause is the only cause of the effect taking place (provided the author does not use nuanced language that allows for the possibilities).

2. When the cause and effect reasoning is given as a premise, then you have to accept it as is and the given cause will always result in the mentioned effect.

The question I have is: when a particular causal statement is given as a premise, then does the central assumption play any role, meaning can we then also say that the given cause is the "only" cause?

(my thought process related to this question is below).

And this is where I turn to conditional reasoning. For a casual statement in a premise, I equate the cause to the sufficient condition and the effect to the necessary condition.

The inference that I then make:
If Cause happens, The Effect must happen

Mistaken negation:
If the cause does not happen, the effect will not happen.

Since we know mistaken negation is an incorrect inference, we can conclude the mentioned cause is thus not the only cause.

The question I am considering is: viewtopic.php?t=8840

I solved it using cause and effect reasoning but answer choice E invoked the elements of conditional reasoning.

Criticism causes regulation.
Regulation causes Price increase.

Option E - No regulation (No cause) -> No Price increase (Effect).

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Regards.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Abhola,

While it is true that E invokes a conditional, I wouldn't fixate too much on that here. This question is about causal reasoning, and answer (E) illustrates one of the flaws that you often see in causal reasoning (the Central Assumption). The conditional in (E) exists only to further elaborate on the causal reasoning, by asking what would happen without that cause (if we don't regulate child care services). A clue that you only need to focus on cause and effect, and not on conditional reasoning, is that the conditional did not come up in the stimulus but only in one answer choice. The question itself is actually not conditional at all, it says that public criticism has already undermined confidence in child care, so the government is certain to respond. Based on that language, we can assume that regulation will happen.

As you pointed out, if we remove the cause, there could still be a different cause that leads to the effect, so it is not necessarily true that the effect couldn't be there. Maybe the cost of childcare will increase because fewer people decide to become caretakers, or because people start having more babies! But based on the stimulus, we really have no idea whether or not that's true, all we know is that regulating childcare will make it more expensive--answer choice (B). Now, E could be happen, but it's not supported by the stimulus--it doesn't have to be true. The Central Assumption came into play in (E), where the author mistakenly assumes that regulation is the ONLY cause for increased costs, which we know is flawed reasoning. If you are looking at a must be true, and an answer choice uses flawed reasoning, it can't be the correct answer (because if the reasoning is flawed, it clearly doesn't have to be true).

I hope that's helpful, but please do follow-up if I haven't fully answered your concerns about causality vs. conditional reasoning!