PrepTest 120

Incorrect. The premise rebutting the opposing points states that the latter might "cause" the former, so it doesn't argue that there is no causality.

Incorrect. A counterexample would be a situation where the cause shows up without the effect (or vice versa); no such thing happens here!

Incorrect. While discussing motives is a common issue on the LSAT, there's no debate over it here, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Observers make a causal claim based on a correlation, but it could be that the causality is reversed.

Answer Anticipation:
Our knowledge of common flaws on the LSAT—specifically, the ways that correlation/causation arguments go wrong—is really helpful in this question.

The stem gives us a lot of information—we're looking to describe how the Editorial attacks a causal argument. In general, there are three ways that the LSAT focuses on to do that—show that the correlation is coincidence; show that there's an alternative cause of both correlated phenomenon; show that the causal connection exists, but it's the reverse of the one stated.

Here, the Editorial brings up the third—the causality is reversed. Let's find the answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't specifically mention reversed causality, but reversed causality is an alternative explanation for the correlation. This answer isn't as precise as it could have been, but it still correctly describes the method of reasoning, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Causality is usually countered in one of three ways:
(1) Showing that the correlation is a coincidence (rare)
(2) Showing or hinting at an alternative cause (this method includes providing a counterexample)
(3) Bringing up reverse causality.

Incorrect. The Editorial is limited to discussing the causality noted, not establishing that the government "must" do anything.