Q17 - An associaiton between two types

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The principle to be extracted from the argument is that correlation between two elements does not prove causation. In fact, another element may have a causal impact on both.

This issue of correlation vs causation shows up A LOT on the exam, so you want to make sure you are very comfortable with it.

All of the answers start out with the correlation issue, but they each expand on the issue differently -- here is a shorthand version of them --

(A) Some say X causes Y, but X and Y are really the same.
(C) Correlation between X and Y, but it could be coincidental.
(D) Correlation between X and Y. X could cause Y, or Y could cause X.
(E) Some say X and Y caused by Z, but X and Y caused each other.

(B) is the only one that has the structure we are looking for:

Correlation between X and Y (blood pressure and overweight). Both could be caused by something else, Z (unhealthy lifestyle).


#officialexplanation

[linzru86]

Hey! just to let you know, I think you misplaced this explanation and the one before it. This is the PT 57 forum.

[chike_eze]

The principle to be extracted from the argument is that correlation between two elements does not prove causation. In fact, another element may have a causal impact on both.

This issue of correlation vs causation shows up A LOT on the exam, so you want to make sure you are very comfortable with it.

All of the answers start out with the correlation issue, but they each expand on the issue differently -- here is a shorthand version of them --

(A) Some say X causes Y, but X and Y are really the same.
(C) Correlation between X and Y, but it could be coincidental.
(D) Correlation between X and Y. X could cause Y, or Y could cause X.
(E) Some say X and Y caused by Z, but X and Y caused each other.

(B) is the only one that has the structure we are looking for:

Correlation between X and Y (blood pressure and overweight). Both could be caused by something else, Z (unhealthy lifestyle).

I really enjoyed reading this post, thanks Mike.
I totally understood the Correlation vs. Causation principle during my timed PT, but I got careless and ended up rushing to (E).

It's really frustrating to review questions that I clearly understood, but ended up screwing up. The timing thing is still a big! big! problem for me -- <sigh>...

[nflamel69]

For (E) I saw the structure as a bit different from Mike, E is saying we thought X (similarity) is caused by Y(common descent), but it could be that X is caused by Z (borrowed structure). I didn't think the similarities should be separated into 2 entities X and Y.

[aebq196234]

doesn't the stimulus say they the effects could be from the same cause and doesn't A say this as well? is it wrong because it doesn't stay tight to what the conclusion says about one cause not establishing another?