看到bible里，关于因果关系的疑问，希望有人能够解答。

peby1223 · 发表于 2013-6-9 01:34:17

第七章，Cause And Effect Reasoning
首先，我是这么理解bible的——因果关系即A的发生，导致B的发生：
1.因果关系存在于premise中或者是存在于conclusion中
2.我们在做逻辑题，比如weaken的题目时，通常题目是由几个premise推出一个conclusion的
我的问题是：
1.比如在一道weaken的题目中，premise我可以认为是因，conclusion我可以认为是果，然后用bible告诉我的如何攻击因果关系的方法来做题吗？（对比课后练习题，这么做貌似很荒唐）
2.如何在premise中辨别隐晦的因果关系
比如例题中说道，“
                                 premise1:犯罪在镇上是一个严重的问题。
                                 premise2:这个地区对比去年，关于犯罪的投诉电话数上升了
                                 conclusion: 小镇上的人比过去更容易成为犯罪的受害者
我第一次做的时候认为的因果关系是
   因：犯罪投诉电话上升了
   果：  小镇上的人比过去更容易成为犯罪的受害者
事实证明，貌似几乎所有的逻辑推理题目都可以这样将premise概括为因，conclusion概括为果，所以我认为问题一比较荒谬，但是我又不知道是否正确？

解答告诉我，尼玛因果居然是：
因：因为有更多数量的犯罪
果：才有更多关于犯罪的投诉电话
  难道bible中提到要攻击因果关系，那么题目中的因果关系如此隐晦，我怎么有效快速去辨别？

peby1223 · 发表于 2013-6-9 21:47:33

自己再顶顶

ayasin · 发表于 2013-6-10 21:32:41

Quote: Critical Thinking Brooke Noel Moore P404-405

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.

ayasin · 发表于 2013-6-10 21:36:18

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

看到bible里，关于因果关系的疑问，希望有人能够解答。

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()