parker wrote:
Great explanation fluke!
This is a classic type of assumption. Anytime you are presented with an observation about two events that CORRELATE, and the conclusion makes a CAUSAL claim, it's a very good idea to check that there were not alternate models of causation that could have explained the observed phenomenon.
Remember that you're looking for a *necessary* assumption for these arguments--without that assumption being true, the argument falls apart. As gmatpassion said above, if you negate
...
.jpg)





