Q21 - Philosopher: To explain the causes

[chiach2]

Im really lost with this question and couldn't decide between A, D, and E. Why is A-D wrong? And why is E correct?

[vincent_1vs]

I got this one right but I had some uncertainties when picking the answer. Here's my thought:

The first sentence is the conclusion while the rest is used as support.

A) This one feels wrong but I had a hard time identify the problem. "Need for certainty" sounds like a distortion of the text to me. Besides, acquiring data about several societies is a REQUIREMENT for the social scientists to explain the causes of social phenomena, not a problem.
B) No, it's the conclusion.
C) Hypothesis? Not sure, but it says "there IS a causal relationship between...", while the passage suggests we need to DETERMINE if there's a causal relationship, so eliminate.
D) Similar to C), it assumes there IS an existing causal relationship, just need to determine the cause and effect while that relationship is not yet established.

E) Sounds good to me.

[joseph.m.kirby]

Conclusion: To identify a cause, social scientist need data about several societies...

Why?

One cannot be sure that A (specific pol struc) is caused by B (certain factors), unless one knows that there are no instances where A exists (specific pol struc) without B (certain factors), and where B exists (certain factors) there are no A (specific pol struct).

A) Incorrect. Skews the scope. The "problem" (perhaps it is a standard practice and not really a problem) is not necessarily caused by a need for certainty. The "problem" is caused by the need to properly establish causation.
B) Incorrect. Out of scope. We are focused on "cultural phenomena" and not general theoretical claims.
C) Incorrect. It doesn't show that there is a relationship. The evidence highlights the means by which to PROVE a relationship.
D) Incorrect. Misapplies the evidence and scope of information in the passage. Referring to "every" social scientist exceeds the scope; moreover, "difficulty" of proving a causal relationship is not mentioned. Perhaps it's a relatively easy process which just requires a couple seconds of Googling.
E) Correct. The claim (conclusion) is justified by evidence which shows how to establish a causal relationship.

[alandman]

Also, this argument is using a common LSAT construct -- im most cases when you have an argument that looks like this:

AAAAAAAAAAAA : BBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Everything before the colon is usually the conclusion and whatever follows is the evidence. With this knowledge, you can pretty much rule out the first 4 answer choices because they all refer to the conclusion as a premise/problem etc...

[Gerald]

PT65, S4, Q21 (Analyze the Argument (Determine the Function)).

The claim that to explain the causes of cultural phenomena, a social scientist needs data about several societies plays which one of the following roles in the philosopher’s reasoning?

(A) It describes a problem that the philosopher claims is caused by the social scientist’s need for certainty.
(B) It is a premise used to support a general theoretical claim about the nature of cause and effect relationships.
(C) It is a general hypothesis that is illustrated with an example showing that there is a causal relationship between political structures and environmental conditions.
(D) It is a dilemma that, it is argued, is faced by every social scientist because of the difficulty of determining whether a given cultural phenomenon is the cause or the effect of a given factor.
(E) It is a claim that the philosopher attempts to justify by appeal to the requirements for establishing the existence of one kind of causal relationship.

(E) is correct.

For determine the function questions, we identify the conclusion and relate all other parts of the argument to the conclusion. The Philosopher concludes a social scientist needs data about several societies to explain the causes of cultural phenomena. His premises boil down to: 1) How could we know X caused Y if Y occurs in countries without X? 2) How could we know X caused Y if there are countries where we have X without Y?

What part of the argument is the question task asking about? The conclusion! Therefore, we will eliminate answers that reference something other than a conclusion.

(A) A problem? No. The author never says needing data is a problem. Eliminate.

(B) A premise? Nope! Eliminate.

(C) General hypothesis? That’s pretty close to conclusion. And the answer even references causality (which is what the philosopher is investigating: what we need to know to determine the causes of cultural phenomenon)...they’re trying really, really hard to tempt us with this one! However, a close reading allows us to eliminate. The author never said there is a causal relationship between political structures and environmental conditions. Instead, he said that, to determine whether such a causal relationship exists, we would need to know other things as well. Evil, I know. Bathe in holy water and eliminate.

(D) A dilemma? Similar to (A). Eliminate.

That leaves (E): It is a claim that the philosopher attempts to justify by appeal to the requirements for establishing the existence of one kind of causal relationship.

It was a claim, so that’s good. And the author proceeded to justify the claim by discussing when causality could be determined. This is our answer.

[erikwoodward10]

Also, this argument is using a common LSAT construct -- im most cases when you have an argument that looks like this:

AAAAAAAAAAAA : BBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Everything before the colon is usually the conclusion and whatever follows is the evidence. With this knowledge, you can pretty much rule out the first 4 answer choices because they all refer to the conclusion as a premise/problem etc...

I think that this is too simplistic. Answer choices A, C, D, and E could all refer to conclusions. Only B refers to a premise.

[erikwoodward10]

(D) A dilemma? Similar to (A). Eliminate.

That leaves (E): It is a claim that the philosopher attempts to justify by appeal to the requirements for establishing the existence of one kind of causal relationship.

It was a claim, so that’s good. And the author proceeded to justify the claim by discussing when causality could be determined. This is our answer.

Great explanation but I disagree with your explanation of D. D isn't wrong because it describes the dilemma--it could be a dilemma. It is wrong because it describes a scenario in which we assume causality to be present, and we're trying to figure out if A causes B or if B causes A. However, the stimulus is saying that we don't actually know if causality is an appropriate method of argumentation at all--that is why we need more than one data point.

[hnadgauda]

I understood that the first sentence is the conclusion. However, I do not understand the rest of the passage. It's so convoluted with no's and the unless makes it more confusing.

What does the second part of the passage mean and do you have advice for how to understand a complicated sentence like this?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think I’m able to understand this by applying the familiar themes of LSAT Causality.

When we’re evaluating whether X causes Y, we’re used to correct answers on Strengthen that basically say “When the cause is absent, the effect is absent”.

We used to correct answers on Weaken that show “the cause was present, but the effect was absent” or “the effect happened, even though the cause did not”.

(This match / mismatch between cause and effect is called Covariation, by the way)

Use specific examples in place of general terms, so that you can picture something in a more concrete way.

The author is saying, “How can we ever be sure that a certain political system (we’ll say ‘monarchy’) is brought about (caused) only by certain ecological/climatic factors (we’ll say ‘living in a cold area with lots of cliffs’)?”

We see that Transylvania has a monarchy, and it’s situated in a cold, cliff-filled area. But is the second thing the REASON for the first thing?

If I knew that there were no similarly structured societies not subject to those factors …. “there are no monarchies not subject to cold, cliff-filled areas” … “ALL monarchies are found in cold, cliff-filled areas”

If I knew that there are no societies, though subject to those factors, are not so structured …. “there are no non-monarchies in cold, cliff-filled areas” … “In all cold, cliff-filled areas, you ONLY find monarchies”

… I would be way more sure that cold/cliff areas CAUSE monarchies.