Q23 - The fact that people who

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you help me to define the particular characteristics that match A to the stimulus?

I see that we have a causal relationship at play here but what threw me off was "depends in part on one's preexisting conditions."

To me, that didn't line up with "illness," so I felt that there was a third factor present in the stimulus.

So when I ran across choice A, even though we have a clear indication of the same kind of causal relationship being undermined, I crossed it out because I didn't see a relationship to a third, related, but different factor (as in the "preexisting conditions" in the stimulus).

After looking at the choices, I can see that none of the others represent the fundamental reasoning related to causality, but I'm still unclear about the relationship of the stimulus to A.

Is there another way I can look at this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's where I think the issue is.

I see that we have a causal relationship at play here but what threw me off was "depends in part on one's preexisting conditions."

To me, that didn't line up with "illness," so I felt that there was a third factor present in the stimulus.

The problem is that what the stimulus actually says is "preexisting state of health." Which I think the test-writer would say is the same as whether you ill or not.

Take a look at "preexisting state of health" and "illness." I know they're not exactly the same, but I think they're close enough.

Does that help?

[htesra]

Can you post a full explanation of how to approach a problem like this. I am horrible at these kinds of questions?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to!

The conclusion is that correlation does not prove a specific causal relationship - "does not prove that vigorous exercise prevents illness," since the relationship could be reversed. In abstract terms; "just because A and B are correlated doesn't mean that A caused B, because the occurrence of B tends to produce the occurrence of A."

(A) is organized differently but has the same reasoning structure. If you take the first clause of the sentence and move it to the end of the argument, you have a near perfect match.
(B) does not deny a causal relationship in the conclusion and so does not match the reasoning.
(C) does not deny a causal relationship in the conclusion and so does not match the reasoning.
(D) is typically the most tempting of the wrong answer choices. But this answer doesn't use "reverse cause" to undermine a specific causal relationship but rather introduces the possibility of an "alternative cause."
(E) refutes a common cause of two factors rather than a simple causal relationship. It says that the effects of two different causes could be the same.

Does that help clear this one up?

#officialexplanation

[clarafok]

The conclusion is that correlation does not prove a specific causal relationship - "does not prove that vigorous exercise prevents illness," since the relationship could be reversed. In abstract terms; "just because A and B are correlated doesn't mean that A caused B, because the occurrence of B tends to produce the occurrence of A."

so i'm trying to make sense of this:
C: the fact that A is correlated with B does not prove that A causes B
P: A does not depend on the prexisting state of B

is this right?

thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

so i'm trying to make sense of this:
C: the fact that A is correlated with B does not prove that A causes B
P: A does not depend on the prexisting state of B

Not exactly. The conclusion is correct but the premise needs to be adjusted. It should say, "whether or not one does B, depends in part on A." the verbage is not great, but their implying that the causal relationship may be reversed. So rather than A causing B, it could also be that B causes A.

Good question!

[canylaw]

Can someone diagram the stimulus?

I am having a hard time solving this one..

[goriano]

Can someone diagram the stimulus?

I am having a hard time solving this one..

Stimulus
Observation: Vigorous exercise correlates with illness prevention
Explanation: Vigorous exercise causes illness prevention
Alternate Explanation: Illness prevention MIGHT cause vigorous exercise

(D) is typically the most tempting of the wrong answer choices. But this answer doesn't use "reverse cause" to undermine a specific causal relationship but rather introduces the possibility of an "alternative cause."

(D)
Observation: Increased height correlates with basketball prowess
Explanation: Increased height causes basketball prowess
Alternate Explanation: Frequency of play MIGHT cause increased height

So is (D) wrong because the alternate cause is frequency of playing basketball? And if the last part of the last sentence had instead stated "for taller children tend to outperform other children at basketball" (D) would still be wrong?

I'm asking this question because I want to know whether there is a difference between the stimulus' construction "depends in part" and D's construction "tends to," and whether we could have eliminated (D) without having recognized that they brought in an alternate cause. Still, for both constructions it seems neither really says that the casual relationship is reversed as explicitly as (A) does. Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So is (D) wrong because the alternate cause is frequency of playing basketball? And if the last part of the last sentence had instead stated "for taller children tend to outperform other children at basketball" (D) would still be wrong?

Good question. Yes, it would still be wrong. To make answer choice (D) better, and this is going to sound illogical, I should have said something along the lines, "... for whether a child is tall, depends at least in part on whether they have a decisive advantage." It should reverse the direction of the cause, not bring in an alternative cause.

I'm asking this question because I want to know whether there is a difference between the stimulus' construction "depends in part" and D's construction "tends to," and whether we could have eliminated (D) without having recognized that they brought in an alternate cause.

Another good question. Both of those constructions are roughly equivalent. They both imply correlations.

[zip]

A parallel basketball argument could be: The fact that b-ball players are more likely than non-players to have quick reflexes does not prove that basketball develops quick reflexes. After all, those with quick reflexes are more likely to play the sport.

Height works a a blind spot, there is no causitive--or reverse cause relation. If the same correlation as causation challenge were made, it would be as stated above that the correlation was held incorrectly to imply. So when it is observed-- wow those b-ball players are tall. the same flawed reasoning being challenged would be " wow, b-ball must really make people taller.

[cwolfington]

(A) is tricky because it puts the premise before the conclusion, which is the opposite of the stimulus. Other than that, the causal reasoning is the same.

I picked (D) at first, but I see why it's wrong. First, the English is messed up, because in a correct answer the premise would read, "decisive advantage in basketball causes you to be tall", which makes no sense in our language. If you diagram (D), you'll see that the effect never changes, while a new cause is introduced; this does not match the reasoning of the stimulus.

[mitrakhanom1]

What tripped me up was the "depends in part on". I took it as depends on from the necessary conditional cues.

So I diagrammed it as
one who exercises vigorously or not-> one's preexisting state of health.

But its the reverse.
One's preexisting state of health-> one who exercises vigorously or not.

MY question is how do I know to do the latter?

[uhdang]

so i'm trying to make sense of this:
C: the fact that A is correlated with B does not prove that A causes B
P: A does not depend on the prexisting state of B

Not exactly. The conclusion is correct but the premise needs to be adjusted. It should say, "whether or not one does B, depends in part on A." the verbage is not great, but their implying that the causal relationship may be reversed. So rather than A causing B, it could also be that B causes A.

Good question!

Hi, Mat, I am very confused in here with this question as to understanding what A and B stands for because it seems like A and B should be reversed to simplify the statement.

I can see how your "abstract structure" --
“just because A and B are correlated doesn’t mean that A cause B, because the occurrence of B tends to produce the occurrence of A.” --
applies to A) and roughly to the stimulus. A) goes like this:

A)
Correlation of H (Habitual reader) and V (verbally skilled) doesn’t prove that H causes V
For V encourages H

Tell me if I am wrong in here, and when I try to apply the same structure to Stimulus, I got:

Correlation of A (Vigorous exercise) and B (less sick) doesn’t prove that A causes B
For A depends in part on B (preexisting state of health.)

While you said that the correct premise is following:

Whether or not one does B, depends in part on A.

I understand that the premise' structure has to be like your premise in order to be parallel with A), but translating from the stimulus gives me the reverse of your answer. I don't see why it should be reversed? I literally wrote down what the stimulus says and JUST replaced the element without messing up the order. Is your B and A representing the reverse of what I assigned?

Help needed please

[maryadkins]

So you wrote:

"Correlation of A (Vigorous exercise) and B (less sick) doesn’t prove that A causes B
For A depends in part on B (preexisting state of health.)"

You're right. Let's set what Matt said earlier aside.

Now, for this to make sense in the context of (A) without thinking you need to "reverse" anything, you will need to realize that "A depends in part on "B" is synonymous to saying that B causes A, in part. This matches it to answer (A):

Correlation of reading (A) and verbal skills (B) doesn't mean reading (A) causes improved verbal skills (B), because having strong verbal skills (B) encourages people to read more (A). Another way of saying this last part would be to say that reading more (A) depends in part on good verbal skills (B).

I hope this helps clarify.

[uhdang]

So you wrote:

"Correlation of A (Vigorous exercise) and B (less sick) doesn’t prove that A causes B
For A depends in part on B (preexisting state of health.)"

You're right. Let's set what Matt said earlier aside.

Now, for this to make sense in the context of (A) without thinking you need to "reverse" anything, you will need to realize that "A depends in part on "B" is synonymous to saying that B causes A, in part. This matches it to answer (A):

Correlation of reading (A) and verbal skills (B) doesn't mean reading (A) causes improved verbal skills (B), because having strong verbal skills (B) encourages people to read more (A). Another way of saying this last part would be to say that reading more (A) depends in part on good verbal skills (B).

I hope this helps clarify.

Thanks for the reply.
I'm just a bit confused on whether Matt's answer is essentially the same thing as my abstract structure.
I understand that "For A depends in part on B" is equal to "B causes A." But, is this the case that,
For A depends in part on B = B causes A, in part = whether or not one does B, depends in part on A (Matt's answer above) ?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

But, is this the case that,
For A depends in part on B = B causes A, in part = whether or not one does B, depends in part on A (Matt's answer above) ?

No. This is not correct. I don't know if this is how Matt meant it, probably not. If so it is a mistake.

[uhdang]

Thank you for clarification
Feels like a big weight has been lifted off of me

[huskybins]

Sorry but I really don't get how and why "A depends in part on B" means "B causes A" even though I tried in researching it online; we all know "A depends on B" means A--> B but why is the logic direction reversed by adding such magic words "in part" after "depend" ?

Still, is there any authentic source to buttress this claim?

IMHO, "whether one exercises vigorously depends in part on one's preexisting state of health" would be making more common sense if it means as below:
"That one exercises vigorously depends on GOOD preexisting state of health" and "That one exercises vigorously depends on BAD preexisting state of health".

Therefore, I would say it is a bi-directional conditional relation between "exercises vigorously" and "preexisting relation": i.e. A-->B and B-->A.

Look forward to having any guru's advice. Thanks in advance!

[ohthatpatrick]

Saying that "A depends in part on B" is not conditional at all, it's just causal.

You could not represent it as
B --> A
if you meant by that "If B occurs, we are certain that A is true"

Sometimes people use arrows to visually show themselves the flow of causality, but they don't literally mean them as conditional arrows.

So someone might be saying
B -----has a causal influence on---> A

The sense of "depends" you're thinking of that is conditional is a synonym for
"requires"
"cannot exist without"
"guarantees"

The sense of "depends" we're supposed to be thinking about when he hear "Your final LSAT score depends in part on how many hours you study" is synonymous for
"is affected by"
"is influenced by"
"is to some extent connected to"