Causation | LSAT Logical Reasoning

[@SFuNk24]

"scintillating vernacular" HAHAHA YESSS! Also every time you say "Whyyyyyy?" I get a good chuckle. Great videos. Thank you. Here's hoping we all get 170's :D Best of luck to all!

[@teresasu1586]

First thank you so much for the lesson, it's amazingly helpful!! I have one question, since we talked about when x correlates y, we cannot say x causes y (because there might be other ways to explain), why for the last question around 21:30, when in the question it says these factors TEND TO isolate local politician from their electorates, we just treat is as a causal relationship. i though TEND TO is a keyword indicating a correlation as explained in the earlier part. THANK YOU!

[@LSATLab]

Good question. You're right that "tend to" is often used with correlations, but it's when paired up with the verb "to be". "People taking the LSAT tend to be Political Science majors in college." is a correlation "Jonathan's drumming tends to wake up the neighbors" is causal, because of the causal verb "wake up". If we said "Jon's drumming wakes up his neighbors", then we would think CAUSALITY. The "tends to" is just a frequency modifier for the causality. It USUALLY causes them to wake. Similarly, if we said "The fact that local political business is conducted secretively isolates local politicians from their electorates", we would think CAUSAL, because "X isolates Y" is a causal verb. The "tends to" is just letting us know the strength of the causal connection. It's not a guaranteed cause/effect relationship but it's a likely one. Hope that makes sense.

[@brandonkris8300]

I'm shocked this video doesn't have more views/likes.

[@nezsa628]

I have a question on 25:44 .. you claimed that we cannot choose answer E because of reverse causality. But, I thought that was a way of explaining a argument??? I thought that Y could cause X and it was only LEGIT in Causal Logic? In addition, the 3rd factor is another way to explain? Or did I confuse myself? Are you saying a way to see what is wrong with the argument is to think to ourselves multiple other ways it could be wrong? Like the College and Vocabulary example.. We could argue that wealthy people are the real reasons why their children are able to obtain advanced vocabulary and not just X leads to Y???

[@LSATLab]

Howdy. What you're talking about relates to the Assumption Family (and the first 80% of that video). If an author presents a *correlation* between X and Y, and then overconfidently concludes, "Clearly, X causes Y", then we bring up Alternate Explanations (such as reverse causality / third factor) as a way to weaken his argument. We'd say, "Couldn't it be that Y causes X? Maybe Z is actually causing the correlation, it accounts for both X and Y." In these arguments, the evidence is just a correlation. The conclusion is speculating one possible causal explanation for the correlation. We're objecting that the author has failed to consider other possible explanations for the correlation. *That's* the context in which we're looking at reverse causality. The question you're asking about is in the Inference family. We're not reading an argument. We're reading a set of facts. And we weren't given a correlation. We were actually GIVEN a causal relationship, as a fact. If I tell you "the covid pandemic is causing me to avoid shopping malls", is it a derivable inference that "If I stopped avoiding shopping malls, the pandemic would end"? Of course not, but that's what (E) was doing. Let me know if any of that was confusing.

[@jakhongirabdurakhmonov7876]

An awesome job!

[@LSATLab]

Thank you!

[@jfkgotnoscoped7819]

The pie charts on your videos pertaining to question type frequency… Do those percentages reflect the LSAT flex accurately?

[@LSATLab]

They reflect Flex as roughly as they reflected non-Flex. You can't treat them too literally; they average out to these percentages over time, not per test. You'll see some LR sections with 6-9 questions that feel like Curious Fact / Causal arguments, and others with maybe 1 question like that. You'll see some LR sections with 3 Role questions and others with none, for example. So even if we say "Flaw is 10% of LR questions", you might see 2 (8%) or 3 (12%) or 4 (16%) on the next LR section you take. Flex vs. not-Flex isn't really relevant here. We're just stating percentages for LR, over the last 30 tests or so. There has only been one released test since Flex started, so that would be the only new data by which to update percentages, but it won't change those averages by much, since it's just one test. Hope that all made sense.

[@jfkgotnoscoped7819]

@@LSATLab it does. Thank you. Since the flex drops one of the LR sections, I didn’t know if those percentages did also, but this clears it up.

[@haritharaghupathi2544]

If ANC A read " If politicians were less isolated from their electorate then there is a chance that any particular acts of resident participation will elicit a positive response" ; then would it be an ANC supported by the given facts?

[@TheOMGFlavio]

How long till reading comprehension videos? that's the only section I'm struggling on :/

[@LSATLab]

We're still working on new RC videos. But we do have an earlier series on RC that is available in the Video Library at lsatlab.com. These include the following topics: How To Master RC, Passage Mapping, Law, Society, Humanities, and Science. New RC videos will be coming to the LSAT Lab KZbin channel in a matter of weeks.

[@L3gion3r]

"Why...?" LOL!

[@damiengustavo3391]

i dont mean to be so offtopic but does anybody know a way to log back into an Instagram account..? I somehow forgot my password. I would love any help you can give me!

[@paytonnova9908]

@Damien Gustavo Instablaster =)

[@uraddiictOnx3]

13:34🤯

[@sydneychin]

21:20

[@As_Sulay]

1:56