A logical reasoning question from current news

[voodoochild]

Experts,
Recently, I read an article about the impact of filing WTO case by the US against China.

Let's say that the argument is :

Mr. Obama - Without subsidies, my profit will go down.
Mr. WTO Judge - You have some serious problems with your business. You are going to go bankrupt with or without subsidies.

Do you think that Mr. WTO Judge's response weakens Mr. Obama's statement?

One of my friend said "no" because Mr. Obama's statement is not causal.

Any thoughts? I am a bit confused.

Thanks
Voodoo Child

[Steve Stein]

There is no weakening and no disagreement. The judge does not take issue with O's statement.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,
Thanks for your reply. I am a bit unclear.

Obama says - If no subsidies profits down
Judge says - If subsidies or ~subsidies profits down.

I am not sure why you are saying that the judge doesn't address O's statement. Can you please elaborate?

Please help me

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your reply. Here is a dialogue that's analogous to the one you asked about:

Me: If I don't start jogging, I will never make it to the Olympics.
You: Even if you do start jogging, you will never make it to the Olympics.

This dialogue reflects no disagreement. It is logically the same as follows:

Me: If I don't start jogging, I will never make it to the Olympics.
You: That is true. And in the case that you do start jogging, you will also not make it to the Olympics.

Again, no active disagreement is reflected in the dialogue as presented.

Let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Thanks Steve. You are great. I think that I mistook a conditional statement for a causal one.

I believe that Jimi Hendrix's statement below would be a weakener in this example:

Voodoo: Because I jog everyday, I will be able to go to the Olympics
Jimi Hendrix : My friend it isn't that simple. Olympics require special training right from one's childhood. Irrespective of whether you jog, you won't be able to go to the olympics.

Taking the same example;

Mr. Obama - Because I didn't get subsidies, my profits are down.
Mr. Judge - You have serious problems with your business. Your profits will be down no matter what.

Do you think that the above two examples are weakeners? I think I am now able to grasp subtle differences in causal vs. conditional arguments esp. in real life scenarios.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks
Voodoo Child

[Steve Stein]

Hi Voodoochild,

Those examples are starting to look less and less like anything you'd see on the LSAT.
The first is a disagreement about what will happen in the future--they disagree about what is sufficient to make it to the Olympics.

In the second dialogue, again, no one has committed to a disagreement. For the next example I'd suggest changing the names--quite a few mixed metaphors here with a president, a judge, public subsidies, private profits, past causes and future prospects.

I hope that's helpful!


~Steve

[voodoochild]

STeve,
Thanks for your reply. I am still not clear why WTO Judge's position in #2 doesn't weaken Mr. Obama's statement. Let's change the names to Joe and Harry, as per your advice.

Joe - Without subsidies, my profit will go down.
Harry - You have some serious problems with your business. You are going to go bankrupt with or without subsidies.

Joe's statement says that his profits are down because of subsidies. However, Harry denies the statement, saying that profits are independent of subsidies. I am a bit confused. Can you please help? I understand that this may not be a LSAT argument. However, I feel that there is some flaw in my understanding.

Can you please help me

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Your scenario is a lot like the one I brought up earlier:

Me: If I don't start jogging, I will never make it to the Olympics.
You: That is true. And in the case that you do start jogging, you will also not make it to the Olympics.

Joe: If I don't get subsidies my business is in trouble.

Harry: That is true. And in the case that you do get subsidies, your business will still be in trouble.


The reason that there is no disagreement is that Joe has made no statement about what will happen if he does happen to get subsidies.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,
Thanks for your detailed reply. I think that I am confused between Causality and Conditionality set-up.

Conditional set-up
I understand that in conditional world, there will be no different opinion. For people who are reading this post, here's the question:)

Joe - If X, then Y
Harry - Irrespective of X or ~X, Y will happen

In this case, Harry agrees with Joe.

Causal set-up
However, in my second attempt, I was trying to come up with an example that uses causality instead of conditionality.

Joe - X happened because of Y. (Here's how I interpreted it : Cause = Y => Effect = X)

Harry - Nope. X happens with or without Y. (In my opinion, Harry is alluding that X and Y are correlated).

Do you think that Harry's statement is a weakener for Joe. I think that in the conditional world (as we discussed above ...by replacing "because" with necessary indicator "then") -- Harry's statement will be strengthener. Subtle difference.



Please let me know your thoughts. I am awaiting for your excellent reply.

Thanks
Voodoo

[Jon Denning]

To answer in brief:

For the conditional example you give I wouldn't say Harry agrees or disagrees. I mean, perhaps agrees in the sense that he's not refuting X --> Y (by saying X --> NOT Y), but it's not an affirmation.

For causal, to show the cause OR the effect existing without the other completely destroys the causal argument. It's a common way to weaken causality on the test, in fact, since the author assumes they're always together (unlike conditionality, where they're not presumed together until the sufficient condition appears).

Separating conditional statements only weakens it if you can show the sufficient without the necessary, implying the necessary isn't required after all. Separating cause and effect kills causality, regardless of how you split them up.