1. That the connection between A and B is coincidental. Illustration 1: You took Zicam and a cold didn’t develop; does that prove that Zicam was the cause? No; that result might be just coincidence. Illustration 2: The cancer rate is notably higher in the vicinity of a dry-cleaning business. Does that prove that the dry-cleaning business was a causal factor in the high cancer rate? No; the elevated cancer rate might be due to chance (cancer cases aren’t distributed evenly throughout a region).
2. A and B both result from a third thing (an “underlying cause”). Illustration 1: Suppose you notice that, whenever you go to bed without brushing your teeth, you wake up with a headache. Does this prove that not brushing caused the headaches? No; the headache and the not brushing might both be the result of an underlying cause, such as going to bed too late or drinking too much. Illustration 2: Chimney fires increase just as purchases of long underwear increase. Does this mean that one causes the other? No; there is an underlying cause of the covariation: People increase their use of warm clothes and fireplaces as the result of an underlying cause, the weather turning colder.
3. B caused A, rather than the other way around (“confusing effect with cause”). Illustration: Having a positive attitude is associated with good health. Does this prove that having a positive attitude contributes to good health? No; it could be the other way around: Being healthy might give you a positive attitude.
Notice that, if B came after B, then it cannot be said to have caused A. So, post
hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning is not guilty of confusing effect with cause. 作者: ayasin 时间: 2013-6-10 21:36
不是放在最后的就是conclusion，明显你的题是果因论证，所以在自己给自己解释因果关系是要捋顺关系： 因为有更多数量的犯罪，才有更多关于犯罪的投诉电话