hellother wrote:Hi,
Can somebody please clarify this for me ?

Let us say : A causes B.

It says in my book that " The author assumes that A is the only cause of B " . So is it same as saying
" If A occurs, B also occurs " ? A(sufficient condition) ----> B(necessary condition) ."The author also assumes that " No alternative causes exist ie If B occurs, A also occurs." .So it is same as B(sufficient condition) ----> A(necessary condition)?
Combining we get A(sufficient condition) <------> B ( necessary condition) ??

Is this correct ? I think I am wrong because this is not explicitly stated in my book . So, if I am wrong, please clarify my question....

Thanks in advance....

What I understand from a causal effect is .

X causes Y. This implies X is the only cause of the effect Y.

It is not necessary that if X takes place then Y has to take place, but if Y is true then X has to be true, to be the cause of Y.

And yes when x-->y , no other alternative cause exists that lead to y.

Experts, any thoughts?

Hope that helps.

hello there
i am sure that your sourse is not powerscore
because your explanation as per that book is a wrong answer to trap us

it says if x occurs y occurs ,

if two things occur at simultaneously or consecutively, it does not imply that one event has caused the other

may be experts can further prove it using some example

Thanks for the reply...

I am talking about a situation where the stimulus specifically states " A causes B "... not a situation in which the stimulus says " A and B occur simultaneously".

So if the stimulus says that " A causes B " , will my previous A(sufficient condn)<----> B ( necessary condn) hold true ? And I have already mentioned that the book does NOT state this explicitly. It is just my inference and I want to know whether my inference is right or wrong ? If wrong , where am I wrong ?

mohan514 wrote:hello there
i am sure that your sourse is not powerscore
because your explanation as per that book is a wrong answer to trap us

it says if x occurs y occurs ,

if two things occur at simultaneously or consecutively, it does not imply that one event has caused the other

may be experts can further prove it using some example

No , I have mentioned If X leads to Y that means X is the cause and Y is the effect.
There is no other alternate cause that leads to Y.

hellother wrote:Thanks for the reply...

I am talking about a situation where the stimulus specifically states " A causes B "... not a situation in which the stimulus says " A and B occur simultaneously".

So if the stimulus says that " A causes B " , will my previous A(sufficient condn)<----> B ( necessary condn) hold true ? And I have already mentioned that the book does NOT state this explicitly. It is just my inference and I want to know whether my inference is right or wrong ? If wrong , where am I wrong ?

No I don't think your inference holds true. B does not become a necessary condition as per my understanding. And I'm not even sure why are you referring to it as sufficient or necessary condition?

It's a simple causal effect.

I know... But please clarify this....

When the stimulus says " If A occurs , B occurs .", we map it like A(suff condn)--->B(necessary condn).
Right ? So when the stimulus says " A causes B ",and when the answer choice says that B has occurred,
then is it ok to map it as B(suff condn) ---> A( necc condn) ? Since B has already occurred and must have been caused ONLY by A ( because that is what the author assumes). Also since B has occurred(according to the answer choice), A also has occurred(since this is the only cause)..
so A(suff condn)---> B(necc condn) ? I have written so, because if the effect occurs, the cause also occurs.. and it has been given in the answer choice that the effect B occurs.

hellother wrote:I know... But please clarify this....

When the stimulus says " If A occurs , B occurs .", we map it like A(suff condn)--->B(necessary condn).
Right ? So when the stimulus says " A causes B ",and when the answer choice says that B has occurred,
then is it ok to map it as B(suff condn) ---> A( necc condn) ? Since B has already occurred and must have been caused ONLY by A ( because that is what the author assumes). Also since B has occurred(according to the answer choice), A also has occurred(since this is the only cause)..
so A(suff condn)---> B(necc condn) ? I have written so, because if the effect occurs, the cause also occurs.. and it has been given in the answer choice that the effect B occurs.

Yes, I got your point. So it goes like this.

X->Y . X only leads to Y . if this is the case in the premise you strengthen it by saying that yes X is the only cause, which leads to Y. If Y occurs X also holds true.

To weaken the above effect, you show that X is not the only cause,which leads to Y and there is an alternate cause leading the effect Y. Hence X is not the ONLY cause leading to the effect Y.


Is this okay ?

Ya..Thanks for the reply....

One thing that confused me was a statement in my book ...

For a " Strengthen cause and effect reasoning question ", it stated that

Strengthen the argument by using the following.
1) Show that when the cause occurs , the effect also occurs

But wouldn't it be a more appropriate statement if it were written that

"Show that when the EFFECT occurs , the CAUSE also occurs" ... according to the statement that
B occurs only if A occurs

hellother wrote:Ya..Thanks for the reply....

One thing that confused me was a statement in my book ...

For a " Strengthen cause and effect reasoning question ", it stated that

Strengthen the argument by using the following.
1) Show that when the cause occurs , the effect also occurs

But wouldn't it be a more appropriate statement if it were written that

"Show that when the EFFECT occurs , the CAUSE also occurs" ... according to the statement that
B occurs only if A occurs

Dont confuse yourself too much with this theory . Powerscore has a lot of theory so be careful with what to grasp

The above statements should be good enough to do strengthen and weaken questions