Causality in the Conclusion vs. Causality in Premises

[dadownclub8]

Hi. On page 249 of the LR Bible (revised for 2014 version) it states the following:

"If the causal statement is in the conclusion, then the reasoning is possibly flawed. If the causal statement is in the premise, then the argument may be flawed, but most likely not because of the casual statement."

However, in the wrap up portion of the section on page 266 it states this:

"If the causal statement is in the conclusion, then the reasoning is flawed. If the casual statement is in a premise, then the argument may be flawed, but not because of the causal statement."

There seems seems to be a difference in the modality in what is written in the actual section vs. the review section. Can anybody clarify which it is (what the proper understanding should be) or if I'm reading too much into it.? Thanks.

[Jon Denning]

Hey dadownlclub,

Thanks for the message and welcome to the Forum!

I think what you're seeing there is a slight softening of the language in the original statement, where the conclusion/wrap up portion is almost certainly true--causal reasoning (or a causal conclusion) is essentially flawed by definition, but we try to be careful absolutes when first presenting conceptual ideas like that. That is, we see a lot of people who approach the LSAT looking for "formulas," and certainties and the test makers are quite good at introducing exceptions to those rules. So we lean towards softening statements so as not to give the impression that this test contains a lot of absolutes/guarantees.

All that said, I'd probably steer closer to the original statement's message--causal reasoning is almost certainly flawed--while recognizing the summary's point as well (it's essentially guaranteed).

I hope that helps clarify a bit!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi dadownlclub,

Let me add to Jon's excellent response above.

There is indeed a difference in the modality between what is written in the actual section vs. the review section. However, you may be reading too much into it. If I were you, I'd regard most observations about the argument composition on the LSAT as less-than-absolute. The reason is simple: our observations - by virtue of their very nature - track tendencies, not absolute truths. If the causal statement is in the conclusion, then the reasoning is possibly flawed. Is it always flawed? Hard to say. More often than not, the validity of such arguments cannot be ascertained, because they are inductive rather than deductive. Instead, you need to question their soundness: has the author ruled out possible causal fallacies, such as reversing the cause and the effect, overlooking an alternative cause, attributing causation to a coincidental correlation, etc.

If the causal claim is presented as a premise, however, we are required to regard such premises as true. Most of the time! There was a LR question not too long ago that specifically asked students to undermine the premises of the argument, not its conclusion. That was a curveball, and it's only happened once.

This shouldn't turn your LSAT world upside-down, so to speak Just use your best judgment, and know there is an exception to every rule.

Thanks!