Conclusion: "if short children are taught to reach high shelves easily, the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease."
Why? Tall children are generally able to reach high shelves easily, whereas short children are generally able to reach high shelves only with difficulty. We know that short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults.
What's the glaring issue here?
Well, the argument is blaming the difficulty inherent in reaching tall shelves for short children to be the cause of them turning into short adults, which we know to be ridiculous. Just because short children are more likely than are tall children to become short adults, and just because it is generally harder for short children to reach high shelves, doesn't mean that if we teach short children to reach high shelves that less of them will become short adults.
The argument is placing a causal relationship where there is only a correlative relationship. There is a correlation with being short and having a harder time reaching high shelves and with being a short kid and becoming a short adult. This in no way indicates a causal relationship.
Remember, the presence of a correlation in an Errors of Reasoning question should always tip you off to a possible Correlation/Causation flaw.
This is exactly what answer choice (D) describes: "assumes a causal relationship where only a correlation has been indicated."
If you have any specific questions on the other answer choices, please feel free to clarify.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
CeciOctober 26, 2018
please explain what causal and correlation mean? I'm assuming causal means it's caused by and correlation means there's a connection but I'm a bit confused as to how we apply this on the lsat.
Jacob-ROctober 26, 2018
That’s right. Causation indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event. An easy way to remember this is “cause†and effect.
Correlation on the other hand is a relationship between two events, but does not mean that one event causes the other.
Here is an example. When the rooster crows, the sun comes up. We know that the rooster crowing does not cause the sun to come up — it is therefore correlation, and not causation.
Thanks for your question. I hope this helps. Let us know if we can help further.
gmaramaraMay 13, 2020
I was stuck between A & D for this question and chose A based on the conclusion "the proportion of them who become short adults will decrease," thinking this was a part to whole flaw. How can I differentiate this vs. a causal relationship in the future?
