Critical Reasoning

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Dave,
While I can understand you here, just a quick question -

For a CR ARGUMENT employing If X then Y LOGIC, will it NOT be considered a CAUSAL ARGUMENT at its core, generally ?

Curious to know your thoughts!

Well, first we'd want to differentiate between an observed relationship and one that we might predict. For example: Last year Company X raised its prices by 50%, and its profits went down. Therefore the increase in PRICES caused the decrease in profits. Here we have an observed correlation and we're trying to determine if one thing actually caused another.

We could also make an If-Then prediction. If a company raises its prices by 50%, then its profits will go down. Notice that in this case, we're making a general prediction about the future, rather than attempting to analyze a particular observation. It is true, however, that the prediction involves a causal element.

That said, I think of this type of causality as being a particular subset of If-then propositions. It's important to bear in mind that not all If-then statements predict traditional causal relationships.

A: If I run 10 miles, I will be tired. Here we have a traditional causal relationship. Running 10 miles would cause my tiredness.
B: If I am wet, it is raining outside. Well, it wouldn't make sense to say that my being wet caused it to rain. (Though you could reverse it to say that the rain caused me to be wet.)
C: If 'x' is a square, 'x' has four sides. It would be strange to claim that the fact that 'x' is a square caused it to have four sides. The four-sidedness is simply a property of squares.

This is all to say that If-Then statements can establish different kinds of relationships, causality among them, so you shouldn't treat all If-Then statements the same way you'd treat a classic correlation vs. causation argument.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the insights. That was really helpful... (Btw, I think, there should be a Typo-correction in your last post I've marked that in RED. Please amend accordingly.)

1. How we can quickly understand which If-Then is expressing a CAUSAL relation and which one is NOT ? (I mean, is there any EFFICIENT way to gauge this during test environment, apart from understanding the LOGIC of the ARGUMENT ?)

2. And from all these discussions, I got a small doubt that why the If-Then statement at hand is NOT expressing a CAUSAL relation ? Because it appears to me that this prediction -- if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline -- means increase in population of these other species will bring down/cause the decline in the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium. So, why it'd be wrong to tag it as a CAUSAL one ? (it's really confusing!)

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote: And from all these discussions, I got a small doubt that why the If-Then statement at hand is NOT expressing a CAUSAL relation ? Because it appears to me that this prediction -- if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline -- means increase in population of these other species will bring down/cause the decline in the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium. So, why it'd be wrong to tag it as a CAUSAL one ? (it's really confusing!)

If we have an If-then construction, we have a conditional scenario that involves some kind of prediction about the future. Predictions about the future may have a causal element to them, but it's not unreasonable to classify them in a different category. (One bucket for causal arguments. A second bucket for plans/predictions.) So it might be helpful to think about this argument in terms of tense.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:So, do all these essentially mean that whenever we have a If-Then statement in PAST TENSE (hence, expressing an OBSERVED correlation), it boils down to a CAUSAL ARGUMENT at its core, GENERALLY ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote: And from all these discussions, I got a small doubt that why the If-Then statement at hand is NOT expressing a CAUSAL relation ? Because it appears to me that this prediction -- if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium would likely decline -- means increase in population of these other species will bring down/cause the decline in the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium. So, why it'd be wrong to tag it as a CAUSAL one ? (it's really confusing!)

If we have an If-then construction, we have a conditional scenario that involves some kind of prediction about the future. Predictions about the future may have a causal element to them, but it's not unreasonable to classify them in a different category. (One bucket for causal arguments. A second bucket for plans/predictions.) So it might be helpful to think about this argument in terms of tense.

Especially with reference to these above two quotes, I still don't get it clearly why it'd be wrong to tag the If-Then statement at hand as a CAUSAL one ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:Maybe think of it this way: there's a difference between analyzing existing evidence and making a prediction about the future based on logic. So if I look at data and see that x and y are correlated, I need to determine if x is causing y or y is causing x or some other variable is causing both. That's your classic causality problem.

However, if I have no evidence, and I simply predict that x will cause y, there's obviously no correlation here to unravel or understand. Though it isn't wrong to claim that I'm anticipating a causal relationship, I don't use the same analytical tools here that I'd use to try to understand a correlation, as the correlation doesn't exist yet.

Put another way, there's difference between attempting to understand a phenomenon that has already occurred (the first scenario) and trying to predict a future outcome (the second one.)

So, in the CR at hand, we don't have any existing evidence or OBSERVED correlation that what will happen if the population of these other species are increased! It's simply a HYPOTHETICAL prediction of a PLAN. Hence, we're not tagging it as HARD causality problem. Right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

zaarathelab wrote:Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium transmitted to humans by deer ticks. Generally deer
ticks pick up the bacterium while in the larval stage from feeding on infected whitefooted
mice. However, certain other species on which the larvae feed do not harbor the bacterium.
Therefore, if the population of these other species were increased, the number of ticks
acquiring the bacterium and hence the number of people contracting Lyme disease-would
likely decline. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Ticks do not suffer any adverse consequences from carrying the bacterium that causes
Lyme disease in humans.
B. There are no known cases of a human's contracting Lyme disease through contact with white-footed mice.
C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage.
D. A single host animal can be the source of bacteria for many tick larvae.
E. None of the other species on which deer tick larvae feed harbor other bacteria that ticks
transmit to humans

I am yet to come across an explanation that is convincing.

OA after some dicussion.

When a CR proposes a plan:
The PLAN = the premise.
The GOAL = the conclusion.

PLAN: Increase the population of species not infected with the bacterium that causes Lyme disease.
GOAL: Decrease the number of ticks acquiring the bacterium and thus the number of humans contracting Lyme disease.

Which answer choice suggests that the plan WILL WORK?

C. A deer tick feeds only once while in the larval stage. Consider the opposite extreme. If a deer tick feeds hundreds of times a day, then increasing the population of other food sources will likely have little effect: with so many feedings, at some point a deer tick is likely to feed off an infected white-footed mouse. But if a deer tick feeds ONLY ONCE, then the odds that it will feed off a white-footed mouse greatly DECREASE, suggesting that the PLAN WILL WORK: one feeding + lots of non-infected food sources = decreasing the likelihood that a deer tick will get infected.

The correct answer is C




mitch sir,can we negate every plan or strengthen questions? Thank you.