#20 - The ability of mammals to control their internal body

[Capetowner]

Being a factor in something is not conditional, Henry Z. Conditional reasoning is about something being necessary 100% of the time when something sufficient occurs. Most of the time, if the author says that one thing is a factor in another thing, they are describing a causal relationship. Think of a factor as one influential element. It might not cause something all on its own, but it is part of a cause.

It's generally safe to interpret a double negative as you did, so "not independent" is "dependent."

Therefore will it be correct with a statement like "a factor in", the effect not occurring would mean the cause (including said factor) does not occur? At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" indeed occurs, this would not guarantee the effect. How would this all tie into conditionality?

[Capetowner]

Being a factor in something is not conditional, Henry Z. Conditional reasoning is about something being necessary 100% of the time when something sufficient occurs. Most of the time, if the author says that one thing is a factor in another thing, they are describing a causal relationship. Think of a factor as one influential element. It might not cause something all on its own, but it is part of a cause.

It's generally safe to interpret a double negative as you did, so "not independent" is "dependent."

Therefore will it be correct with a statement like "a factor in", the effect not occurring would mean the cause (including said factor) does not occur? At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" indeed occurs, this would not guarantee the effect. How would this all tie into conditionality?

Edit* At the same token, is it true that it cannot work the other around? As in, if "a factor" does not occur, this would not guarantee the effect does not occur. How would this all tie into conditionality?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Capetowner,

The phrase "is a factor in" indicates partial causality. In other words, "the ability of mammals to control their internal body temperatures" is a partial cause of "the development of their brains and intelligence" according to the argument, but not the sole cause.

Because this is a partial cause, an answer that shows the cause occurring without the effect occurring would not necessarily weaken the argument (as it usually would with a single cause presented in the argument) because another partial cause (that we don't know about) may be missing.

However, an answer that shows the effect occurring without the cause would weaken the argument. For example, if some mammals were able to develop their brains and intelligence in the typical way without the ability to control their internal body temperatures, this would weaken the conclusion that this ability is even a partial cause (i.e. a factor) in this development.

(I realize that this is not a Weaken question, but it can be helpful to understand how to weaken causal arguments, including arguments with partial causes, even for Strengthen and Assumption questions, because those answers will often just do the exact opposite of what would weaken those arguments.)

I would generally recommend keeping causal reasoning separate from conditional reasoning in most cases (including this one). There are some situations where the two concepts overlap, but usually it is best kept the concepts separate in order to avoid confusion.

More information on causal reasoning, including partial causes, can be found in chapter 8 of "The Logical Reasoning Bible."