Q9 - Records from 1850 to 1900 show that

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You've got it priyanka.krishnamurthy!

And definitely don't beat yourself up over this one. On my first pass through the answers, I initially eliminated (A). But then went on to eliminate all of them. I was looking for correlation/causation. But while (A) had that, the latter part of the answer choice didn't match my pre-phrase.

But the argument did shift the discussion of the phenomena discussed in the correlation and those in the causal relationship. So, answer choice (A) is correct.

Incorrect Answers
(B) twists causation differently than the argument. Sole criterion is too strong.
(C) is tempting, but the conclusion isn't merely about the present moment, but about always.
(D) describes a different method of reasoning. The causation is between two correlated phenomena, no third common cause is put forth.
(E) describes a different method of reasoning. The argument infers causation from correlation, NOT from causation.

#officialexplanation

[priyanka.krishnamurthy]

Hi! I just wanted to confirm the reasoning behind the correct AC, A.

I chose B and crossed out A due to the "two other phenomena are casually connected to one another" (latter part of the AC). Looking back at it, seems as if this answer is correct because the inference is about HEALTH and FOOD AVAILABLE, while the initial two phenomena that are correlated are about WEIGHT and CROPS.

Would love to hear some thoughts on this one, just to make sure I am 100 on it.

Thanks!

[LukeM22]

"Records from 1850 to 1900 show..."

I get the correlation vs. causation detail that determines why C is wrong and A is right, but I couldn't help but notice that A refers to the above as a "claimed correlation" and C, while incorrect for obvious reasons, does refer to the above as "records". In other times I've seen the word "claim", it seems to refer to an opinion or something at least unproven. Given that A is right, should one's takeaway be:

a) "Records and "(claimed) correlation" are the logical equivalent and that's another reason why A is right.

or

b) The two nouns are not logically equivalent, but because even with this difference factored in, A is still the most right answer, and therefore while the slight mismatch DOES make A slightly less right, it doesn't do so enough to make a difference. But the two are NOT the same.

?

Just trying to figure out how much weight I should apply to differences like these and whether it's enough grounds to eliminate wrong answers on procedure questions in the future.

[ohthatpatrick]

I've never seen the term "claimed correlation" before, so I would put almost no weight into sorting out the difference.

I think they are interchangeable on this question, in the sense that both "records concerning a past correlation" and "a claimed correlation" are each acceptable ways of referring to the 1st sentence.

The bigger difference to focus on between (A) and (C) is whether the author's conclusion is about a correlation to OTHER phenomena, or whether it's still dealing with the original two correlated factors.

[LukeM22]

Did not notice that. Very helpful. Thanks!

[obobob]

quick question:

Besides some word shiftings like: babies' birth weights --> health of a newborn, and success of the previous year's crp[ --> amount of food available and correlation and causation error in this argument, I thought there is another flaw in this conclusion that [the health of a newborn "depends to a large extent" on the amount of food available to the mother during her pregnancy.

I interpreted this as the health of a newborn is largely influenced by the amount of food available. Besides the correlation --> causation error in this argument, would it be also safe to think that the argument is also unjustifiably assuming that the amount of food is 'largely' influential to the health of a newborn?

I might be separating this issue from the entire correlation and causation flaw happening in this argument, so it will be great if anyone can answer my question. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it would definitely be fair to complain about the strength of language in the conclusion.

Not only has the author not proven "the health of a newborn depends to a partial extent on amount of food available to mom", he certainly hasn't proven that it depends to a large extent.

I'll admit, though, that I have no idea why we're even talking about flaws on this question.

This is just asking us to describe the argument. No evaluation skills needed, so I'm not wasting any energy with considering whether this is flawed or looking for possible objections/assumptions.

Hope this helps.

[obobob]

Thank you so much!