nitesh50 wrote:
Hi Karishma.
SO I have been struggling with causation for a long time now. I often get confused when we have decide whether an alternate cause can actually become a weakner or not.
1.Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist’s argument?
Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
2. A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and waking cycles differ from those of other partner reveals that such couples share fewer activities with each other and have more violent arguments than do couples in a relationship in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns . Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.
3. 12 years ago and again 5 years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's product a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.
In case 1 the causation implies a past event.
Hence the alternate cause is actually a weakner.
Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.
In case 2 the causation is more like a characteristic,
Hence the alternate cause is not a weakner.
Also, we can say that the argument says that
A and B occur together and then assumes that A causes B.
Hence the alternate cause will not be a weakner.
The government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
In case 3 the causation relates to a future event
Hence the alternate cause is not a weakner.
Now in the mood elevation question:
Conclusion:
sugars can play a major role in mood elevation.
Can we say that this option is more like case 2. Since it says "can", the alternate cause is not a weakner.
But, if we were to drop can and say that
Sugars play a major role in mood elevation,
in this case Only A causes B will be an assumption.
Looking forward to your analysis.
Regards
Nitesh
I don't understand your logic of past vs future. It doesn't have anything to do with it. Consider each case to be a discussion between two people.
Case 1:
A: Number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. It is because many were out of service.
B: Not necessary. Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
B has given an alternative reason for lower number of articles. Perhaps, the accelerators being out of service didn't have much to do with it. Perhaps they were still available when needed. But since magazines are printing fewer such articles, we saw fewer. It makes sense. It weakens the claim of A that the reason was X. There was another factor Y which could have been responsible.
Case 2:
A: Couples with different sleeping patterns share
fewer activities with each other and have
more violent arguments than do couples in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns. Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles
can seriously jeopardize a marriage.
B: Couples with same patterns also have arguments that can jeopardise marriage.
A already says that couples with different sleeping patterns have MORE violent arguments than do those in which both partners have same routine. A doesn't say that couples with same sleeping patterns don't have arguments. Hence, it doesn't weaken A's argument.
Case 3:
A's plan: In order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government
should allow the pundra to become weak again
We need to find a reason the plan won't work. So a reason why even if we let tundra become weak, we will not see similarly sized increase in exports.
Now here, does it help to say that a similar increase can be obtained in another way? No. We need to find a reason why our plan won't work. The fact that another plan will work is not relevant.
In the mood elevation question, we are looking for an assumption. We are not looking for a weakener. An assumption is what connects the premises to the conclusion. Hence I am not sure how you are applying this concept to the mood elevation question.
close
13 Dec 2018, 20:47
