Hi,
In many CR questions I come across the term called 'Reverse causation'. Can anyone please explain what is this and how we identify and/or apply this in order to solve a CR question?
Or in case if this question is answered elsewhere, please redirect me to that post.
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Sidd
Can anybody explain Reverse Causation with an example?
This topic has expert replies
- Gowri@CrackVerbal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:34 am
- Location: Bengaluru, India
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:9 members
Take a look at this question. I am posting only the answer choices relevant to this discussion on reverse causation.
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune' system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune' system activity.The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness·
(D) Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease.
Here, the conclusion is that the immune system protects against mental illness.
On what basis/evidence is this conclusion made? On the observation that people who have low levels of immune system activity tend to score lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune system activity.
The problem with option C is that it doesn't talk about people with normal immune system activity! Only about those with high ISA.
Let's try negating option D: Mental illness causes people's immune system activity to decrease.
What does this say about the experiment? It is not low ISA that causes poor mental health (as manifested through low scores on the tests); on the other hand, the people already had mental health problems, which, in turn, lowered their immune system activity. This is a case of reverse causation.
We can see that negation of option D breaks the argument - hence, it is the right answer.
Essentially, when you observe some correlation between 2 events X and Y, check for the presence and direction of a cause-effect relationship.
i.e. X and Y are correlated, but is X causing Y or is Y causing X?
To conclude one way or the other, you need to assume that the reverse does not exist.
Hope this is clear.
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune' system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune' system activity.The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness·
(D) Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease.
Here, the conclusion is that the immune system protects against mental illness.
On what basis/evidence is this conclusion made? On the observation that people who have low levels of immune system activity tend to score lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune system activity.
The problem with option C is that it doesn't talk about people with normal immune system activity! Only about those with high ISA.
Let's try negating option D: Mental illness causes people's immune system activity to decrease.
What does this say about the experiment? It is not low ISA that causes poor mental health (as manifested through low scores on the tests); on the other hand, the people already had mental health problems, which, in turn, lowered their immune system activity. This is a case of reverse causation.
We can see that negation of option D breaks the argument - hence, it is the right answer.
Essentially, when you observe some correlation between 2 events X and Y, check for the presence and direction of a cause-effect relationship.
i.e. X and Y are correlated, but is X causing Y or is Y causing X?
To conclude one way or the other, you need to assume that the reverse does not exist.
Hope this is clear.
Gowri N Kishore
Verbal Specialist & Mentor
CrackVerbal
If you find my posts useful, please hit the 'Thank' button.
Get a FREE Profile Evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
https://applications.crackverbal.com/fre ... valuation/
Attend Live, Instructor-led Online classes by 99th p'cile instructors!
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/gmat-course ... ve-course/
Verbal Specialist & Mentor
CrackVerbal
If you find my posts useful, please hit the 'Thank' button.
Get a FREE Profile Evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
https://applications.crackverbal.com/fre ... valuation/
Attend Live, Instructor-led Online classes by 99th p'cile instructors!
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/gmat-course ... ve-course/
- sidceg
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:22 am
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
Thank you. While I am a bit clear now, Can you please explain the following?
Can you please explain what this exactly means in a "The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions" question?We can see that negation of option D breaks the argument - hence, it is the right answer.
- Gowri@CrackVerbal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:34 am
- Location: Bengaluru, India
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:9 members
The info given in the question is called the premise - this could be some kind of data or evidence upon which the conclusion is drawn. Assumptions are the missing link between the premises (given data) and the conclusion. They are never explicitly given in the question.siddharthilangovan wrote:Thank you. While I am a bit clear now, Can you please explain the following?
Can you please explain what this exactly means in a "The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions" question?We can see that negation of option D breaks the argument - hence, it is the right answer.
Since the assumption is what the conclusion depends on, if we negate the assumption (make it false), the conclusion will no longer be true. This is the acid test for assumption-based questions. In this question, we are assuming that mental illness does not reduce immune system activity. If we negate this assumption (i.e. mental illness reduces immune system activity), then the conclusion is proved wrong.
Hope this is clear.
Gowri N Kishore
Verbal Specialist & Mentor
CrackVerbal
If you find my posts useful, please hit the 'Thank' button.
Get a FREE Profile Evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
https://applications.crackverbal.com/fre ... valuation/
Attend Live, Instructor-led Online classes by 99th p'cile instructors!
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/gmat-course ... ve-course/
Verbal Specialist & Mentor
CrackVerbal
If you find my posts useful, please hit the 'Thank' button.
Get a FREE Profile Evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
https://applications.crackverbal.com/fre ... valuation/
Attend Live, Instructor-led Online classes by 99th p'cile instructors!
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/gmat-course ... ve-course/