#12 - Commentator: The Duke of Acredia argued long ago that

[Adam Tyson]

It is indeed! A conditional relationship IS an "association" between the two conditions, but while many conditional claims would seem to imply a causal relationship ("if I have the flu, then I will not go to work"), they do not require a causal relationship, and we should not use a causal analysis when dealing with them.

[goingslow]

Thank you, Adam!

[electricwatt]

Hi! So is it fair to say that conditional logic can indicate association/correlation, but not causation?

Thank you so much!

Hi, could we please get some guidance here.

I understood the conditional arguments but in my mind i always associated conditional arguments with causation "IF THEN" and not just association/correlation. But I guess im thinking wrong? Does conditional logic indicate association/correlation only and not causation? or is it irrelevant and the answer response was solely based off the language of the stimulus to set us up.

thanks so much!

[Chandler H]

Hi! So is it fair to say that conditional logic can indicate association/correlation, but not causation?

Thank you so much!

Hi, could we please get some guidance here.

I understood the conditional arguments but in my mind i always associated conditional arguments with causation "IF THEN" and not just association/correlation. But I guess im thinking wrong? Does conditional logic indicate association/correlation only and not causation? or is it irrelevant and the answer response was solely based off the language of the stimulus to set us up.

thanks so much!

Hi electricwatt,

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but yes, generally conditionals are associated with if/then statements.

Answer choice (B) is wrong primarily, in my eyes, because it asserts that "its absence has always led to failure." Think about what we know; we know that every time Acredian governments have fallen, the ruler has been bad. Do we know that every time a ruler has been bad, the government has fallen? No! Therefore, we can't say that the absence of a good ruler ALWAYS leads to failure.

Does that make more sense?

[AJITSHARMA880]

I am having a tough time diagramming this stimulus. I understand the correct answer is on mistaken reversal, but I am not understanding the diagramming. Could someone please diagram it for me in a simpler manner?

[Dana D]

Hello,

The conditionals in this stimulus can be described as:

Successful rule concerned with people's welfare

Successful rule concerned with people's welfare
** this is another way to write the second sentence - that if an Acredian government has fallen (not been successful ) the ruler has disregarded peoples needs (not cared about welfare)

The last sentence is simply a restatement of the first - successful rule caring for welfare.

I don't think my diagrams are much different from the Administrator's at the beginning of this thread, but I also don't think they can be altered much. Does this make sense now? If not, which diagram or what about the diagramming is confusing you?

Best