Reinfrank2011 wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
[
The conclusion of the prompt argument posits a causal relationship ----- "periodontal disease is a cause of a variety of cardiovascular problems" and we are asked to weaken the argument. Demonstrating "no cause" is precisely what we have to do, in order to weaken this argument. As I explained above, the logic of the argument is the classic correlation-implies-causality mistake. If P & Q are correlated, a very effective weakener for this the causation argument is to show that something else accounts for the correlation of P & Q. This is precisely what (B) does. It tells us (brushing & flossing regularly) are correlated with (exercise & healthy diet) --- one could say, they are both "caused" by a person's overall health-awareness & quality of self-care. Brushing & flossing cause the absences of periodontal disease: that's common knowledge. Regular exercise and a health diet cause the low frequency of heart disease: that's also common knowledge. Therefore, lack of brushing and flossing would lead to a higher frequency of periodontal disease, and lack of exercise & a poor diet would lead to a higher frequency of heart disease. That's precisely how these two could be correlated without having a causal relationship.
How does the logic used to justify the answer choice NOT commit the same error of judgement that the author or the original argument did, that correlation implies causation? All this says it that
people do not have gum problems are more likely to not have cardiovascular problems. Even if you take it imply correlation, how does proof of correlation deny causation? EX: "Not being shot in the head is correlated with not dying, THEREFORE that fact weakens the argument that being shot in the head causes death?". Please explain.
Great question.
Again, we have
Premise:
P is found with Q (P is correlated with Q)Conclusion:
P causes QOf course, the error is the unsubstantiated jump from correlation to causality.
The OA,
(B), essentially says "
the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q"
First of all, we don't know why this would be true, but we don't have to --- we take premises and statements in answer choices as
fait accompli, beyond question. So, suppose
(B) is true, for whatever reason. What would be the logical consequences of
(B)?
Notice, also: we don't repeat the mistake at a higher level --- there is absolutely no reason to move from statement
(B) to the totally illogical statement "
the cause of P causes the cause of Q". That would be disastrously illogical, but that's an absolutely unnecessary step, irrelevant to the argument involved with this choice.
Here's the logic --- if the cause of P is correlated with the cause of Q, this means, where one is found, we will tend to find the other. In the many situations in which the two are found together, then the cause of P will cause P, and, separately, the cause of Q will cause Q, and therefore P and Q will be found together. In other situations, in which both are absent, then the absence of this cause of P will make P less likely to occur, and the absence of this cause of Q will make Q less likely to occur, and thus we will have an elevated likelihood of scenarios in which the absence of P and the absence of Q concur. Thus, on both counts, this statement would create conditions in which P & Q are correlated, and this would be an alternate explanation ---- i.e. how P & Q could be correlated even though P has absolutely nothing to do with causing Q.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
close
09 Oct 2013, 16:10
