CR - about the alternative causes

[rajatvmittal]

Refer these two links: -
every-year-many-people-become-ill-because-of-airborne-mold-t10851.html

the-media-claim-that-the-economy-is-entering-a-phase-t1091.html

In the first link - an alternative cause is not correct and 'mschwrtz' suggested that it is not a weaker also (necessary vs sufficient argument).
In the second link, the answer choice excludes the possibility of the alternative cause.

Can you please provide an example where the alternative cause to the stated effect is a weakener. Knowing this becomes all the more important as one of the books (Critical thinking bible - i am not trying to compare MGMT and powerscore bible) states that in order to attack a causal question, one possible strategy is to find a alternative cause to the stated effect.

thanks
Rajat

[RonPurewal]

Don't try to generalize about this stuff. If you just use your everyday common sense, you'll know when this happens and when it doesn't.

E.g.,
Stray cigarettes cause wildfires.
OK. If I tell you "Lightning causes wildfires", it should be pretty clear that the above statement is not weakened.

A stray cigarette started yesterday's wildfire.
All right. If I tell you "Lightning started yesterday's wildfire", it should be just as clear that the above statement is not only weakened, but pretty much completely ruled out.

The point is that it should be really easy to tell why each of these examples works the way it does, just by using everyday thinking.

[RonPurewal]

More importantly, if you try to create general rules for CR, you will fail.
You will definitely fail. If you actually succeeded, you'd have invented "strong artificial intelligence""”something that the entire world has failed to invent, in over 100 years of trying"”all by yourself. Not gonna happen.

For instance, let's say you tried to generalize the above, into something like "Alternate cause weakens in specific cases, but not in general cases." (To me, that's already garbage words; it's way too abstract.)
Well... no.

People can lose weight by dieting.
This statement is not weakened by "People can lose weight by exercising."

Beth lost weight by dieting.
Nor is this one weakened by "Beth lost weight by exercising." No reason Beth couldn't have done both things.

See?
If you're still obsessed with trying to make "rules"... well, now you need to make a "rule" for why Beth's weight loss can reasonably have two causes, while yesterday's wildfire can't.
You can see where this is going. (Even if you formulate some "rule" for that, I can think for another 5-10 seconds and come up with an example to defeat that one, too.)

Good news, bad news.

Bad news: You CANNOT win this game with "rules". It's impossible.

Good news: The total number of things you have to learn for CR is ... zero. You can walk right into the test, with the same thought processes you've been using since you were 9 or 10 years old, and solve the problems. (You couldn't have solved them when you were actually 9 or 10 years old, of course"”but mainly because you wouldn't have understood the text.)
If you study for CR, you should focus entirely on UN-learning the weird, "rules"-based thought processes that have been planted in your head by academic courses.

[rajatvmittal]

thanks Ron!.

I tried to UN-learn the rules (obviously it can't be done overnight, but I gave it a shot to see if it works for me).
Two benefits:-
a) expands the boundaries of the thinking process
b) makes you feel relax unburdened by the rules.

Though it requires practice to un-learn, if it gets you the good score, worth a shot. thanks
Rajat

[RonPurewal]

thanks Ron!.

I tried to UN-learn the rules (obviously it can't be done overnight, but I gave it a shot to see if it works for me).
Two benefits:-
a) expands the boundaries of the thinking process
b) makes you feel relax unburdened by the rules.

Though it requires practice to un-learn, if it gets you the good score, worth a shot. thanks
Rajat

Your point (a) is more accurately phrased as "removes the artificial constraints on the thinking process".
When you think about these problems the right way, you're going to use any thought processes you wouldn't apply to the everyday world, so "expanding" isn't really an issue.
The issue is that (incorrectly) regarding CR as an exercise in "academic" or "rigorous" logic will put many of your normal thought processes out of service"”including most of the ones you'll need to solve the problems, and all of the ones that take real-world thinking / common sense into account.