Q20 - Monroe, despite his generally poor

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a great one to see the way correlation and causation get played off each other in LR here. And yet some of the answer choices can be tempting.

The evidence establishes a correlation between eating the hot peppers and becoming ill. Monroe concludes that the hot peppers caused him to become ill (key words "due to").

The argument mistakes a correlation for cause and effect relationship. Simple, now find it in the answer choices. Instead of stating it real clear answer choice (E) suggests a way to weaken such an argument - it introduces a potential alternative cause.

Ways to weaken causation:

1. provide an alternative cause
2. an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect
3. an example of the presumed effect without the presumed cause

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) is subjective. Who's to say how many is "too few" meals.
(B) is tempting to many. The hardest part is determining what it says! The argument does posit a causal relationship, so that part's correct. However, the argument does ascertain that the presumed cause preceded the presumed effect. He at the peppers before he became ill.
(C) is incorrect. There is no indication of bias in favor/or against Tip-Top.
(D) sets too high a threshold to qualify as a valid criticism. Monroe's conclusion was not that hot peppers will cause someone to get ill, but rather that they caused him to get ill. It's a much narrower conclusion that doesn't make any assumptions about what would happen to everyone else who ate hot peppers at Tip-Tip.

Hope that helps!

[patrice.antoine]

Is this a weaken or a flaw question?

ETA: I ask because suggestions are presented on how to weaken the argument for what I deemed a flaw question.

Can how we approach weaken questions be used for flaw questions?

[rawatnaman]

Hi,

Could anyone explain, what the answer choice B is trying to say ? " He posits a causal relationship without ascertaining that the presumed cause preceded the presumed effect" .

[tommywallach]

To the first question, the stem will always make clear which it is. If it asks which answer choice weakens the argument, it's weaken. If it asks WHAT the flaw is, it's a flaw.

As for the second question, it means this:

The guy says that either X causes Y or Y causes X, but he didn't actually think about which one causes which.

-t

[VendelaG465]

I realize this is a flaw question but it seems more like a weaken reviewing the answer choice. Usually when I analyze a corr. vs. causation flaw I ask myself 1) if the reverse is true as well & 2) could something else cause A (peppers) &B(large quantity of food). In this question neither of those really apply.. unless we apply it like so: large quantity of food ---> illness , but to say he ate a large quantity of food caused Monroe to eat more peppers as well doesn't really make sense to me? is it only referring to A instead of BOTH A&B?

[ohthatpatrick]

There's plenty of overlap between Flaw, Weaken, Necessary Assumption, and Describe Method.

After all, Flaw answer choices that begin with
"takes for granted / presumes " are usually trying to name a Necessary Assumption

Flaw answer choices that begin with
"fails to consider / neglects possibility / ignores possibility" are trying to name a potential Weakening idea

Flaw answer choices that discuss a move from one idea to another
f.e. "concludes ___ on the basis of ____ " , "confuses ___ with ___ ", or "takes for granted that ___ because _____ "
are basically just like answer choices on Describe Method; we need to match up the answer choice language with the argument core.

It seems to me like you're thinking of a true Flaw answer choice as the type that abstractly describes the name of the bad move the author did, but that's only about 1/3 of correct answers. Many others name something that was assumed. Many others bring up a brand new potential objection.

In terms of your other question, you're getting a little boxed in with your thinking about how to attack/evaluate a Causal Argument.

The basic structure of Causal Argument is:
Hey there's this curious fact.
Thus, here's my overly confident causal explanation for that fact.

The curious fact could be a Correlation (most common), a Statistical Change, or just a weird Phenomenon (like "Paul is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.)

We always think about Causal Arguments through two different lenses:
1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain the curious fact?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the author's way of explaining it?

If we have a curious fact (a correlation between eating peppers and getting sick), and the author concludes that the peppers are what caused the sickness, we need to ask ourselves:

1. Is there some OTHER WAY to explain why Monroe got sick each time he ate the peppers?
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the author's notion that the peppers made him sick?

The most common form of OTHER WAY answers for correlations, as you stated, are
- reverse causality
- third factor

But 3rd factor doesn't necessarily mean that the 3rd factor caused BOTH halves of the correlation. Often, the 3rd factor happens to accompany one side of the correlation and CAUSES the other side of the correlation.

On one old example, they start with a correlation that's like
"the countries with the highest fat intake have the highest rates of cancer", and conclude, "thus eating lots of fat causes cancer".

The alternate explanation that we pick as our Weakener says
"the countries with the highest fat intake also have the highest rate of environmental pollution".

We think, 'OH, so THAT'S why there's a correlation between fat intake and cancer. It's not that fat intake CAUSES cancer. It's just that fat-eating countries happen to be heavily polluted countries, and it's the POLLUTION that's causing the cancer.'

We're not thinking that environmental pollution causes cancer AND causes fat-intake.

Hope that helps.

[TillyS471]

First sentence says despite his "GENERALLY POOR APPETITE", then the argument has extra large pizza, all you can eat, GIANT meatballs....
which kinda speaks to me ..... E is what they are hinting at.