PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 17
An association between two types of conditions does(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ASome people claim(39 more words not shown)
- BPeople who have(33 more words not shown)
- CIn some areas,(31 more words not shown)
- DPeople's moods seem(45 more words not shown)
- ELinguists propose that(46 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Two things can keep happening together without either one causing the other. The passage gives a particular reason why: something else might be causing both.
Call the two observed conditions X and Y. We keep seeing X alongside Y, but perhaps a third condition, Z, produces each of them. Even a perfectly consistent association between X and Y wouldn't rule that out. “Persistent and inviolable” doesn't turn an observation that two things go together into proof that one causes the other.
What we’re looking for
We're asked which judgment most closely fits that principle. I want a response to a correlation that says, “Before treating one as the cause of the other, consider a shared cause.” Merely questioning a causal claim isn't enough. The explanation for that doubt should match the third-cause possibility the passage emphasizes.
Working the answers
- A
This says growth in the money supply and inflation are the same phenomenon. That is different from saying they are two effects of a third cause. To follow the passage's pattern, the response might instead suggest that something like a war caused both changes. A identifies the two things with each other rather than proposing something that produces both.
- BCorrect
High blood pressure is X, being overweight is Y, and an unhealthy lifestyle is the possible shared cause, Z. The response tells us to consider that lifestyle before deciding that one of the observed conditions causes the other.
That is exactly the caution in the principle. We can accept the association while questioning what explains it. The answer doesn't need to prove that weight never affects blood pressure or that the lifestyle account is the only possible explanation.
- C
Coincidence is another reason an association might not establish causation. But this answer emphasizes that the correlation could be purely coincidental, despite researchers' proposed third factors. The passage emphasizes those shared causes as an explanation for an association. C ends by pointing in a different direction.
- D
This asks which way the causal influence runs: do clothes affect mood, or does mood affect the choice of clothes? The passage's specific warning is that neither observed condition need cause the other because a third factor could cause both. D questions direction without offering that shared-cause possibility.
- E
This starts with the shared-cause account: an earlier language supposedly produced similarities in both Greek and Latin. But the response challenges that account by suggesting the languages borrowed from each other. It moves from a proposed common source toward direct influence between the two languages. The passage moves the other way, cautioning us to consider a common source instead of assuming direct influence.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.