Americas
Europe
Say your friend hasn't talked to you much today. You might wonder, "What's caused this?" You might think you know the reason. For instance, you might think they are angry with you. However, your reasoning could be flawed, and your friend might be untalkative because they fought with their parents that morning.
Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.
Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenSay your friend hasn't talked to you much today. You might wonder, "What's caused this?" You might think you know the reason. For instance, you might think they are angry with you. However, your reasoning could be flawed, and your friend might be untalkative because they fought with their parents that morning.
Not everything happens for the reason we think it does. Making assumptions about causation can result in causal flaws.
The causal flaw is a rhetorical fallacy. It broadly describes any flaw of inaccurate causation.
A causal flaw is an error in connecting a cause to its effect.
The cause and effect relationship connects why something happens to what happens.
In terms of your essays, a causal flaw occurs when there is an issue in explaining why something happens. This often happens when you don't present Evidence to support your Argument.
There are several kinds of causal flaws.
You have no doubt heard of "causation vs. correlation."
Correlation is any form of relationship between two phenomena.
Causation is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between two phenomena.
Say you used to wake up at 11 AM on weekends, and now you wake up at 7 AM. And let's say you get more exercise on the weekends now than when you woke up at 11 AM.
Did your schedule change cause the shift in exercise, or is this merely an example of correlation?
Use what you know to link causes and effects.
Well, it is at least an example of correlation because some relationship exists here. As for whether or not the change in routine is a cause, you can't tell with so little information. It might seem like an example of causation; however, consider some alternative causations.
You no longer work on the weekends, meaning you have time to exercise.
You have begun to follow a schedule that includes a small amount of exercise.
You only just began to want to exercise.
You can see how new information might change your perspective on causation. If one of these facts were true, you would not describe your change in schedule as the cause for increased exercise.
Correlations as causal flaws often result from a lack of analysis or information.
Say a dog owner claims to overfeed their dog because it always asks for food. However, what if, in reality, the dog always asks for food because its owner overfeeds them? This would be an example of reverse causality.
Reverse causality is the misconception that Y causes X when really X causes Y.
You might think it strange that Reverse Causation happens. Who would mess up describing causation by presenting the exact opposite relationship? Well, it's not hard to imagine if you look at it this way. If two things form a causal relationship, they are tightly bound. A cause is not complete without its effect and vice versa.
Thinking about it this way, it's no great surprise that someone might mistake the two. Think of it like the chicken and the egg. The more you think about which caused which, the harder it becomes to answer!
To check for Reverse Causation, ask yourself, "Could the effect I've observed perpetuate or create the cause?" If the effect could create the cause, then you might have misidentified the relationship.
A "misdiagnosis" occurs when you think you understand something but don't. This causal flaw occurs when you study the relevant data and Evidence but reach a false conclusion regarding cause and effect.
After studying the incident, we determined that corrosion caused the pipe to burst.
But say they are wrong, and a weak seal caused it to burst. This would be an example of a misdiagnosed causation. Such a causal flaw is hard to identify because the guilty party has tried to identify the cause; they simply failed.
To prevent a misdiagnosed causation, don't jump to conclusions. Consider, "Is there something I haven't considered yet that could change the picture?" If you have any amount of incomplete information, that information might be the key to an accurate assessment of cause and effect.
The most prolific causal flaw is the assumption. While you have information in a misdiagnosis, you do not have information when making assumptions.
When you make an assumption, you decide something is the case without sound reasoning.
Assumptions cause flaws of all kinds, including causal flaws. For instance, if you assume that your air conditioner shuts off overnight, you might ascribe an incorrect cause to the high cost of your power bill. It might be your AC running at night, but because you assume it doesn't run at night, you will not realize this is a possible cause.
Assumptions are some of the most dangerous bases in logic because they are like blind spots. You probably don't recognize them. To avoid assumptions when assigning causation, look out for these three things.
Map out your Line of Reasoning. In other words, find where your reasoning begins and ends. Search for assumptions.
Study your topic. Don't guess. Know the subject well when writing an essay. Read all the required material when writing a short answer for a timed test.
Keep an open mind. A closed mind is much more likely to make assumptions.
First, you should know how to identify a causal flaw. After that, test your knowledge on some examples!
To identify and counter a causal flaw, follow this as a guideline.
Find the cause and effect (e.g., air pollution and global warming).
Identify The Argument surrounding the cause and effect (e.g., air pollution doesn't cause global warming).
Identify any bias in The Argument (e.g., a party line or a study conducted by a big oil company).
Look for counterevidence (e.g., hundreds of impartial, contrary studies).
Formulate your evidence into a counterargument (e.g., air pollution does cause global warming due to X, Y, and Z reasons).
The following examples contain a causal flaw. Identify those flaws and explain why they undermine the Argument's logic.
Try this one.
Two people died crossing that bridge. Cross that bridge, and you risk the same fate!
The cause here is "crossing the bridge," while the effect is "death." The flaw here is in the diagnosis. People die crossing bridges for many reasons, such as car accidents. This bridge also probably has hundreds or thousands of people crossing it each day, so two deaths aren't likely to be a significant statistic.
This is also an example of the logical fallacy of Scare Tactics. Scare Tactics use the emotion of fear to convince someone.
Examine all the evidence to establish causality.
Let's look at a different example.
Our leader could not have caused this. We would not have elected him if he were capable of this.
The cause here is "the leader," while the effect is nondescript. However, you don't need to know the precise effect to identify the causal flaw. The causal flaw in this Line of Reasoning is the underlying assumption that the leader can do no wrong.
This is also an example of the argument from authority, a logical fallacy that uses someone's credibility without further logic to justify a conclusion.
Let's take a look at one last example.
The man in the convenience store killed someone there. He's a cold-blooded killer.
Although this might be correct, this reasoning alone is not sufficient to prove the point. For instance, someone else might have attacked him first, meaning the man is not a "cold-blooded killer" but rather someone defending himself.
If the man were defending himself, this conclusion would be a causal flaw of reverse causality. The man killed that person because of that person; he didn't kill that person because of himself.
Cases of reverse causality can be dangerous in high-pressure situations, such as police encounters, where someone might be mistaken as a threat when, in fact, they are the threatened.
The above example is a case of hasty generalization, a logical fallacy in which someone draws a conclusion from insufficient evidence.
There is no absolute distinction between deductive flaws and causal flaws. A deductive flaw merely refers to a flaw in deduction.
Deductive reasoning, also called deduction, narrows general facts into specific conclusions.
A deductive flaw can be a causal flaw. Here's an example where the flaw is both deductive and causal.
Clouds always cause it to rain.
Rain helps plants grow.
Thus, clouds always help plants grow.
This contains a flaw in the first premise, "clouds always cause it to rain." This is not true, and thus it is a deductive flaw. However, because the premise involves a flawed cause and effect, the premise also contains a causal flaw.
A premise can be flawed in many ways, committing multiple fallacies.
Like the deductive flaw, the inductive flaw is not totally distinct from the causal flaw. It just refers to an error in inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning, also called induction, uses specific examples to draw a more general conclusion.
It's the inverse of deduction. If the circumstances align, an inductive flaw can be the same as a causal flaw. Here's an example.
The study polled ten people. Of those, six had an allergic reaction to the protein. Therefore, this protein causes an allergic reaction in most people.
The flaw in induction is the sample size. Ten people are not representative of "most people," so it is not a good sample size. At the same time, this conclusion contains the causal flaw of misdiagnosis because the causality established between the protein and allergies is not sufficiently validated.
As you can see, causal flaws have a wide range of interactions regarding rhetorical fallacies.
A causal flaw is an error in connecting a cause to its effect.
Reverse causality, misdiagnosing causality, assumptions, and correlations may indicate a causal flaw.
Scare tactics, arguments from authority, and hasty generalizations often contain causal flaws. Many logical fallacies contain them.
Find the cause and effect.
Identify the argument surrounding the cause and effect.
Identify any bias in the argument.
Look for counterevidence.
"Our leader could not have caused this. We would not have elected him if he were capable of this." The causal flaw in this line of reasoning is the underlying assumption that the leader can do no wrong.
YOUR SCORE
Your score:
Already have an account? Log in
SIGNUP SIGNUPFlashcards in Causal Flaw20
Start learningWhat is a causal flaw?
A causal flaw is an error in connecting a cause to its effect.
What might you call an error that demonstrates a relationship of inaccurate causation?
A causal flaw.
What is correlation?
Correlation is any form of relationship between two phenomena.
What is causation?
Causation is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between two phenomena.
How does correlation become a causal flaw?
If the arguer presents correlation as causation, that is a causal flaw.
What kind of causal flaw is this example?
"A dog owner claims to overfeed their dog because it always asks for food. However, in reality, the dog always asks for food because its owner overfeeds them."
Reverse causality
Already have an account? Log in
How would you like to learn this content?
How would you like to learn this content?
Free english cheat sheet!
Everything you need to know on . A perfect summary so you can easily remember everything.
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!
Sign up with Email Sign up with AppleBy signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.
Already have an account? Log in
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
