The Language of Argument

2 2 6

C H A P T E R 1 0 ■ C a u s a l R e a s o n i n g

Table 5

Case 1: A B C D ~G

Case 2: ~A B C D ~G

Case 3: A ~B C ~D ~G

Because G is present in all of the cases in Table 4, no candidate can be

eliminated by the SCT as a sufficient condition for target feature G. This result

is trivial, however. Table 4 does not provide rigorous testing for a sufficient

condition of G, because our attention is restricted to a range of cases that is too

narrow. Nothing could possibly be eliminated as a sufficient condition of G

as long as G is always present.

Similarly, G is absent in all of the cases in Table 5, so no candidate can be

eliminated by the NCT as a necessary condition of target feature G. Still, be-

cause this data is so limited, its failure to eliminate candidates does not even

begin to show that anything is a necessary condition of G.

For both rules, then, rigorous testing involves seeking out cases in which

failing the test is a live possibility. For the SCT, this requires looking both

at cases in which the candidates are present and also at cases in which the

target is absent. For the NCT, rigorous testing requires looking both at cases

in which the candidates are absent and also at cases in which the target is

present. Without cases like these, passing the tests is rather like a person

bragging that he has never struck out when, in fact, he has never come up

to bat.

Reaching Positive Conclusions

Suppose that we performed rigorous testing on candidate C, and it passed

the SCT with flying colors. Can we now draw the positive conclusion that

C is a sufficient condition for the target G? That depends on which kinds

of candidates and cases have been considered. Since rigorous testing was

passed, these three conditions are met:

1. We have tested some cases in which the candidate, C, is present.


2. We have tested some cases in which the target, G, is absent.


3. We have not found any case in which the candidate, C, is present and
   the target, G, is absent.
   In cases that meet these three conditions, we sometimes face a dilemma.
   More than one candidate might pass this rigorous testing. It is possible that
   both of these candidates is sufficient for the target feature, but there is often
   some reason to worry that only one of them is really causing the effect. In
   order to test this hypothesis, we can add another restriction:


4. If there is any other candidate, D, that is never present where the
   target, G, is absent, then we have tested cases where C is present and
   D is absent.

97364_ch10_ptg01_215-238.indd 226 15/11/13 10:48 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.