If A → B and B → C, does A → C?

[WaltGrace1983]

If A causes B; B causes C; does A cause C? I know that A will bring about C through the chain of causation, but would A be the cause of C?

For example, I said "If I study hard, I will get a 180." Then I said, "If I get a 180, I will get into law school." I then said that, "I study hard."

In this case, does my studying hard cause me getting into law school or is it ONLY my 180 that causes me getting into law school?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

My take on this is that YES, you can say that A causes C. However, the question could conceivably do something super obnoxious (I'm not speaking from a knowledge of a question that does this, by the way, just hypothesizing based on LSAT-evilness), like mention "direct" causation versus "indirect causation." But if it's just a question of cause, if A causes B and B causes C, it's fair to say that A causes C.

I'll also throw this very interesting question to Christine, to get her two cents (and to see if she knows of any exceptions...)

-t

P.S. I also changed the title of this post, to make clear what you're asking, because I think people will be interested.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting question, WaltGrace1983.

Tommy is spot on about the issue with direct vs indirect causation. Fortunately, though, the LSAT generally doesn't delve into the varying characteristics of causation. There's a very good reason for this: it's messy as all get out.

Causation is, at its core, something that is fundamentally impossible to logically prove absent an outright statement of causation in the premises. We can make causation more and less likely, but proving it is a non-starter. Consider real life gravity - we cannot actually prove gravity - that's why it's a "theory". We're pretty darn sure about it, but you know, it's entirely possible that angels actually push all objects around in a way that looks exactly the way things would look if there were gravity. Not likely, but possible.

At any rate, the only way in LSAT-land to justify a conclusion of causality is to start with a premise of causality, just like you're doing. If A causes B, and then B goes on to cause C, then yes, A would be validly considered a cause of C.

Is it A cause? THE cause? The DIRECT cause? The INDIRECT cause? One of many potential causal factors? Meh?

The LSAT is not going to force distinctions here because the distinctions don't generally have clearly understood and accepted well defined boundaries. When they want you to accept that part of a conclusion (or answer choice), however, they're likely to make it inoffensive by saying the very generic "A causes B" or "A is a cause of B".

Something doesn't have to be THE ONLY cause of something in order to be A cause of something, and it doesn't have to be a DIRECT cause in order to "cause". Now, if they start throwing in much more specific wording like "direct", "only", etc, then be worried and investigate - just like you would any time you saw that kind of language.

Interesting question!

[WaltGrace1983]

So, for the purposes of the LSAT, I should probably just assume that A → B, B → C |-- A causes C unless the argument hinges on direct/indirect/etc. - which it probably wouldn't.

Thanks to you both!

[tommywallach]

Glad to help (and glad I got Christine involved!). : )