miteshk wrote:
Chiranjeev,
This article helped me clear up a lot of confusion. But I still don't understand why are we being generous towards present/future tense in causality?
As you explained that with the present tense:
If 'Eating sugar leads to obesity',
Then 'Eating oil leads to obesity' doesn't weaken the previous statement because the author is not saying that only eating sugar leads to obesity.
Applying similar line of reasoning to following statements:
Eating sugar made Jon obese.
Eating oil made Jon obese.
Here also the author is not saying that only eating sugar made Jon obese. He could very well have meant that eating sugar was one of the reasons that made Jon obese.
Looking forward to your reply. Also I would appreciate if you remember any official examples displaying the above two concepts.
Hi Mitesh,
You have brought up a very interesting point here!
I was wondering when would someone ask this!
Let me ask you a question first.
What led to the economic growth of India in the first decade of this millennium?
Suppose you say, "Rising income of middle class".
Can I refute you by saying "No, it was just one of the factors. Rather, a combination of good governance and rising income of middle class led to the economic growth"?
Yes, I can say that because when I ask you "what led to economic growth", I am referring to entire growth and not a part of growth (which can be possibly explained by one of the two factors).
So, if anyone asks us, "what led to Y?". Either we say that X is one of the factors that led to Y or if we say that
X led to Y, then it means that X alone led to Y.
Therefore, when we say
X led to Y, any statement that indicates Z led to Y weakens our statement.
However, the case is very different for
X leads to Y.
Suppose I ask you, what leads to good score on GMAT?
Suppose you say, hard work.
Now, can I refute your argument by saying, "Studying from good test prep company leads to good score". The answer is No here. I am not at all countering that hard work leads to good score. I am possibly presenting another way to achieve the same objective but not countering the original way.
Another analogy can be:
Statement "Road X leads to destination D" is not countered by a statement "Road Y leads to D".
On the other hand, Statement "Road X led Joe to destination D" is countered by a statement "Road Y led Joe to destination D".
Does it help?
Thanks,
Chiranjeev