Q11 - Recent studies indicate a correlation

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: No causal connection between damage to Ch6 and adult schizophrenia.
Evidence: Although there is a correlation between people with damage to Ch6 and adult schizophrenia, it is not a constant correlation (exceptions in both directions).

Answer Anticipation:
If we assign ourselves Opposing Counsel, we'd need to argue that "There IS a causal connection between damage to ch6 and adult schizophrenia." How would we deal with the exceptions in which people w/ damage don't have schiz and in which people w/o damage do have schiz? For things to be causally connected, there doesn't have to be an airtight connection. For example, giving someone a chocolate cupcake is causally connected to giving them pleasure, even though some people take no pleasure from being given a chocolate cupcake and other people are experiencing pleasure despite not having a chocolate cupcake. So basically, we would just say "there can be a meaningful causal relationship MOST of the time ... it doesn't have to be ALWAYS to be causal."

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! If some but not all types of damage to ch6 lead to schizophrenia, does that weaken the author's argument? Of course. The fact that some types of damage DO lead to schizo basically refutes the conclusion. And the fact that some types of damage DO not lead to schizo explains the exceptions in the author's evidence in which people do have damage but don't get schizo.

(B) Extreme: "solely". Does the author need to assume that schizophrenia is ONLY caused by chromosomal damage? Definitely not. In fact the author doesn't even need to assume that schizophrenia is EVER caused by chromosomal damage.

(C) Tempting a bit, since the author seems to reach a hastily broad conclusion. But there's no way to say the sample is "unrepresentative". It seems like she is considering cases of people with/without damage to ch6 and with/without adult schizophrenia. Her bad move is not that she assumes these people are representative of all cases; her bad move is thinking that since damage to ch6 and schizo are not invariably associated, they must have no causal connection.

(D) I've never seen this answer be correct, but it refers to reverse causality. In other words, it's saying "No, silly author --- adult schizophrenia causes damage to chromosome 6!" That is not a valid objection to this argument. Also, the author's conclusion is saying there is NOT a causal connection, so the author isn't envisioning anything as a cause or an effect.

(E) She does the opposite of this. There IS a correlation, but she concludes that there is NOT causation.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is what we might call an "anti-causal" conclusion, denying the existence of causal influence. That inverts our normal job. Typically, we're trying to shoot down the author's version of cause-effect. Here, we're trying to defend the idea that damage to ch6 could be a cause of adult schizophrenia. We need some way to address the author's evidence, the exceptions in which damage does not lead to schizophrenia. (A) gives us a way for the author's evidence to be true, but for her conclusion to be false (which is the classic form for a weakening idea).

#officialexplanation

[clarafok]

hello,

i chose E instead of A thinking that since the argument was trying to find a causal relation, hence implying causation, but failed to find it. does causation not work this way?

and i'm not entirely sure why A is right even if i were able to eliminate E. could someone please explain this to me?

thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Usually, arguments on the LSAT that involve causation are flawed because they assume causation when there isn't, but in this case the argument is flawed because it assumes there is no causal relationship when there could be.

Imagine the following analogous argument:

Many people claim that there is a connection between taking Manhattan LSAT courses and scoring over 170 on the LSAT. However, some people score over 170 without taking a Manhattan LSAT course, and some people who take a Manhattan LSAT course don't get over 170. Therefore, taking a Manhattan LSAT course has no impact on one's performance.

Based on this argument, could we say taking a MLSAT course is the only way to get a high score? Of course not.

Could we say there is no relationship between taking a MLSAT course and getting a high score? We have no proof of that either.

The truth is, there are many factors that will play into the score you get on test day -- just because results are not 100% uniform, it does not mean that one thing doesn't have an impact on the other.

In the original argument, just because there isn't a perfect 100% one-to-one connection between the chromosome and schizophrenia, that does not mean there is absolutely no causal relationship. It could still be that the chromosome has an impact, but it's based on the type of damage to the chromosome, how this damage impacts with the other characteristics of a particular individual, and, finally, statistical odds (Kobe Bryant makes baskets only 50% of the time, but we can still say his hours of practicing impacted his performance).

(A) addresses one of these issues, and thus represents a reasoning issue in the argument.

Notice that (E) states the author is making a correlation for a causation - -again, in a lot of arguments, that is the issue. However, here, the author's point is that there isn't causation, and so that's not the flaw in this case.

I hope that helps! Please follow up if you have additional questions.

(A) addresses this issue --

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Mike!
I had it down to (A) and (C) and ultimately went with (C) because I thought the samples were not representative. It just says "there are people..." and "some people..." so you can't make a generalization saying there is absolutely NO causal connection between the two! I was thinking in the same lines as you were when I approached this problem. I thought, "hmm.. no causal connection? There could still be a causal connection" so then when I went to the answer choices (C) was very attractive since it seemed to indicate that you can't say there is NO causal connection from just "some people" and "there are people" -- perhaps they account for only 1% of the population, and the remaining 99% all develop schizophrenia from this damage to number 6 chromosome or vice versa. Does my question make sense?? Could you please help me understand why (C) is incorrect?

[zainrizvi]

I am also confused by choice (B).

I think it's wrong though because even if schizophrenia is caused solely by chromosomal damage, the argument is still flawed. Just because there are some people with schizophrenia and no chromosome damage, and vice versa, it doesn't show that there is no causal connection.


Wait.... I'm still confused

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question guys!

The issue here is that answer choice (B) represents our main candidate on an argument that posits causation after merely ascertaining a correlation between two things (provides evidence of a correlation and then concludes causation from it). So the reason why (B) is tempting is because you're so used to it being correct when causation comes up.

But this argument doesn't conclude causation, it denies causation. So the argument is not forgetting about some other cause, it's concluding that there's some other cause!

Hope that helps...

[zainrizvi]

Great question guys!

The issue here is that answer choice (B) represents our main candidate on an argument that posits causation after merely ascertaining a correlation between two things (provides evidence of a correlation and then concludes causation from it). So the reason why (B) is tempting is because you're so used to it being correct when causation comes up.

But this argument doesn't conclude causation, it denies causation. So the argument is not forgetting about some other cause, it's concluding that there's some other cause!

Hope that helps...

Wait so if a question confuses correlation for causation, it always commits the flaw of assuming that the cause is the only cause? I've heard on LSAT that if an argument concludes something, that it is is implicitly assuming that it is the only possible cause, but I'm not so sure if this is true/where it applies.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Wait so if a question confuses correlation for causation, it always commits the flaw of assuming that the cause is the only cause?

That's an over-simplification of how causation works on the LSAT. Such an argument would have failed to consider that the effect could have come about from some other possible cause.

But you also want to remember that causation is flexible. Other arguments might reverse the causal relationship, they might fail to rule out possible alternative causes, and they might simply infer causation, when correlation was all that could have been established.

There are definitely a couple of certainties on the LSAT, but I think what you heard on this one elsewhere might be a bit to absolute.

Hope that helps!

[goriano]

Hey Mike!
I had it down to (A) and (C) and ultimately went with (C) because I thought the samples were not representative. It just says "there are people..." and "some people..." so you can't make a generalization saying there is absolutely NO causal connection between the two! I was thinking in the same lines as you were when I approached this problem. I thought, "hmm.. no causal connection? There could still be a causal connection" so then when I went to the answer choices (C) was very attractive since it seemed to indicate that you can't say there is NO causal connection from just "some people" and "there are people" -- perhaps they account for only 1% of the population, and the remaining 99% all develop schizophrenia from this damage to number 6 chromosome or vice versa. Does my question make sense?? Could you please help me understand why (C) is incorrect?

I think (C) is wrong because in the same way that the "there are people" and "some people" construction can be interpreted as NOT being representative, the construction is so vague that you can also interpret it as BEING representative. (C) seems to be accusing the argument of DEFINITELY basing its claim on an unrepresentative sample, when in reality it is only POSSIBLY unrepresentative. Could one of the geeks chime in? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Interesting approach goriano, I think there may be another way to see it though.

What is generalizing? Generalizing is going from a small/potentially unrepresentative sample to a larger group. So to say that "all 6th graders enjoy reading" just "because Mary, who's a 6th grader, also enjoys reading" would be logically unsound.

This argument does contain a general conclusion, it also contains evidence that is very general as well. The argument reasons from a general claim to another general claim, and the issue raised in the conclusion is not the same issue raised in the evidence.

So in essence, we cannot say the argument is generalizing.

Hope that helps!

[wguwguwgu]

Great question guys!

The issue here is that answer choice (B) represents our main candidate on an argument that posits causation after merely ascertaining a correlation between two things (provides evidence of a correlation and then concludes causation from it). So the reason why (B) is tempting is because you're so used to it being correct when causation comes up.

But this argument doesn't conclude causation, it denies causation. So the argument is not forgetting about some other cause, it's concluding that there's some other cause!

Hope that helps...

This is so helpful Matt! --- B is actually totally wrong, since the argument doesn't state the causation at all! Can't believe I was so blind and couldn't understand why B is wrong for so long.

One last question:
If B would say" the argument presumes.... that if schizophrenia can be caused by chromosomal damage, then it is solely caused by chromosomal damage."
would it be a correct answer?

I think this is actually the (wrong) interpretation of B I had in the beginning.

Thanks!

[gplaya123]

Hello Lsat peers and gurus,
I just wrote a long explanation for pt58 LR section 1, #11.
By the way, I hate this question.

Despite of writing an explanation for this question and sort of firmly understood what the argument is trying to do, I still cannot grasp why exactly some of the answer choices are incorrect.
(I feel like I am being inconsistent because... how could I have written an explanation for a question without actually understanding it? But I just want to fully grasp what the answer choices are actually saying...)

I get that E and D are off because the author does not make causation in the argument.

Let's talk about A B and C.

C) I think Matt's exp was spot on, that the argument does not make generalization. However, if it were to say "the argument is based on an unrepresentative population," would it have been the correct answer?

My thought: Yes! Because the argument talks about "some" people who does not belong to this casual relationship. However, who are these some? Perhaps, these are the people with super gene who could survive nuclear war with a scratch. Thus, these people could have super immune system that prevents any mental disorder from happening. So... I think it would have been the right answer. What do you think?

B) The word "SOLELY" bothers me. Does the argument really believe that there is only sole cause to this mental disorder?
I am sort of iffy about it. Because on one hand, just by looking at the "LANGUAGE" of the argument, which does not have extreme words like must, always, or never, I don't think the author assumes anything about sole cause.

But, on the other hand, the argument does overlook this scenario:
Damage to 6 Chromosome -> Damage to 1 Chromosome -> Schizophrenia.
Perhaps, damage 6 cause damage 1 in turn cause this mental disorder.
The argument seems to neglect that there is some third factor that could cause this mental disorder...
By saying it... isn't author arguing that there is sole cause?

PS: Please don't tell me that author does assume that there is sole cause for Schizophrenia but B is wrong because it says "caused by chromosomal damage" not "caused by chromosomal damage number six"


A) This is the most confusing answer choice ever due to introducing this "subtype" of damages. I get the fact that from my using analogy (eating a lot to gaining fat) I get that A could be the answer. But, this subtype bothers me. Where does it come from and how does it REALLY point out the flaw? The argument never said a word about there is different types of damages or say "some damage to 6 chromosome leads to Schizophrenia." All they said was without damage, or with damage. To me, that "damage" is inclusive of all damages not some or most of them.

HELP ME and Thanks in advance!!!!

[tommywallach]

Hey Gplaya,

I always get nervous when people take issue with a certain set of answer choices. Remember, all the wrong answers are WRONG. All the right answers are RIGHT. Any grey areas are imagined. : )

Before looking at the answers here, put the flaw in your own words. I think it's a relatively straight-forward one:

Just because X doesn't cause Y for some people doesn't mean X never causes Y.

(A) CORRECT. Notice that it uses the word "some." This is the flaw the argument makes. Could be that SOMETIMES X causes Y.

(B) Remember your conclusion, gplaya. The conclusion is that there is NO causal connection. So the passage hardly assumes answer choice (B)! This is the PRECISE opposite of what the argument assumes!

(C) This is about the meaning of unrepresentative sample. I think you're thinking of "small sample". Any group of people is representative as long as we aren't told anything to the contrary. This is a group of people. We have no reason to believe they aren't representative. The argument would need to say, "A group of healthy young people" or "A group of people raised underneath a nuclear power plant." Then there might be an issue of representative-ness.

Hope that helps!

-t

[gplaya123]

Hey Tommy,
thanks for chiming in.
Let me ask you one more question.

As you have worded your flaw,
it said
just because some people don't get this disease by 6 chromosome that does not mean it never causes it;
or X sometimes causes Y.
I could not put it better myself.

Ok, what I concern is how A is worded:
if it were to say
"the argument ignores that damages to chromosome number six sometimes lead to schizophrenia," it would be money.
But A talks about "some type of damage to Chromosome lead to schizophrenia." This isn't sometimes; this talks about subtype...
am I too picky?

[cyt5015]

I agree with Tommy about answer C. "There are" and "some" appear to mean "small" but not necessarily! They mean at least one, ranging from 1 to 100, given that 100 is all. Therefore, both can be representative as well.

[caoyuan0820]

I was initially confused by the question as well because of the rare non-causation conclusion, but once I tried to think out of the LSAT logic box it is actually not a really hard one.

The author of this argument is trying to attack the probable causal relation between 6 and S(6 could cause S) for 2 reasons:
1) no 6; with S;
2) with 6, no S;

Before setting our eyes on the options, let's first take a minute to consider what evidence one could use to overthrow a conclusion concerning a causal relation...If you are trying to negate factors at either end of the "-->" symbol(as the author did), then whatever answers you may have in your mind is going to be wrong!

Why? We (the author of the argument included)were all led on by the LSAT mindset and so comfortably committed a fatal mistake: take sufficient-necessary assumption to be causal connection. They are actually two different things. Of course we can say there exists causal relationship if 6 is sufficient to cause S, but it is not the only situation that may yield a causal connection. In real life, certain factor may be neither sufficient nor necessary for the occurrence of another event, but the causal connection may still exist, so no matter how the factors are negated, there wouldn't be much impact on the power of the original causal connection.

Answer(A) addresses this issue, by reminding us there is possibility that some but not all types of damage to 6 lead to S, it actually says 6 doesn't need to be sufficient to lead to S for the establishment of a causal connection.

[jm.kahn]

(B) Remember your conclusion, gplaya. The conclusion is that there is NO causal connection. So the passage hardly assumes answer choice (B)! This is the PRECISE opposite of what the argument assumes!

-t

Hi,
This question confused me a lot in choosing between A and B. I've read the above explanation about why B is wrong but I don't think this explanation is completely correct -- it is true that conclusion is that there is no causal connection but the conclusion is about causal connection between chromosome 6 (C6) and schizophrenia (S). Whereas choice B is about any chromosomal damage (C) and S. The argument could assume causal connection between any chromosomal damage (C) and S and still conclude that there is no causal connection between C6 and S.

If we insert choice B as an assumption in the argument, the argument looks like this.
- Correlation between C6 damage and S
- Some people without C6 damage get S
- Some people with C6 damage have no S
- Only C damage causes S (choice B)
- Therefore, no causal connection between C6 damage and S

This argument above makes sense as it shows that C damage other than C6 damage causes S. This makes it look like B describes a reasoning flaw in the argument.

A also describes a flaw as long as we don't assume that only C6 damage causes S. This is necessary as some people without C6 damage get S. When LSAT says "A causes B" do they mean only A can cause B or A is one of the things that can cause B?

It seems to me that B does describe a flaw. Can someone point out why it's wrong then?

[contropositive]

I initially picked E because I am so used to those coming up...correlation then conclusion about causation. Anyway, now I understand why its A.
I have a question about D. i know its not the correct answer on this argument but I keep coming across this answer choice and I don't understand what it means. It's also never been the right answer on the 100+ arguments I have done during my course of studies. Can someone exemplify an argument or cite one LSAT argument where this type of answer was correct.

[seychelles1718]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: No causal connection between damage to Ch6 and adult schizophrenia.
Evidence: Although there is a correlation between people with damage to Ch6 and adult schizophrenia, it is not a constant correlation (exceptions in both directions).

Answer Anticipation:
If we assign ourselves Opposing Counsel, we'd need to argue that "There IS a causal connection between damage to ch6 and adult schizophrenia." How would we deal with the exceptions in which people w/ damage don't have schiz and in which people w/o damage do have schiz? For things to be causally connected, there doesn't have to be an airtight connection. For example, giving someone a chocolate cupcake is causally connected to giving them pleasure, even though some people take no pleasure from being given a chocolate cupcake and other people are experiencing pleasure despite not having a chocolate cupcake. So basically, we would just say "there can be a meaningful causal relationship MOST of the time ... it doesn't have to be ALWAYS to be causal."

Thanks for your explanation, ohthatpatrick!
But in the LSAT world, in order for a causal relationship to be valid, when there is a cause, the effect should ALWAYS be present?
I thought there is a direct relationship between the cause and the effect and therefore the causal relationship becomes invalid when there is only one of them present (The cause is present while the effect does not occur OR The effect occurs when the cause is not present)

[ohthatpatrick]

It all depends on how a claim is phrased.

Sometimes, authors say "X can cause Y".

That just means that IT'S POSSIBLE for X to have a causal influence on Y.

Supposed counterexamples in which you have X, but don't have Y, don't hurt that claim.

If an author more definitely says "X causes Y", then she is committing to the idea that when X is present, Y is present.

Other claims are essentially saying "ONLY X causes Y". If we see the effect Y, and we infer that the cause "MUST" have been X, then we are implying that "only X causes Y".

That doesn't mean X guarantees that Y happens. It means that Y happening guarantees that X happened.

Most of the time, our author has presented some background fact and then concludes that "X must be the reason".

We investigate that by asking
- Could SOMETHING ELSE have caused the background fact?
or
- Is it PLAUSIBLE that, in this case, X was the cause? (Is X ever the cause of Y?)

On this question, the conclusion is debate between
There is NO causal connection between X and Y (X never has any causal influence on Y)
vs.
There is SOME causal connection between X and Y (X, at least sometimes, has a causal influence on Y)