1

I'm being asked to determine the cause of a phenomenon using Mill's methods and a table of relevant factors. Below is the table:

A    B    C    D    E    Event
*         *         *
     *    *                * 
*         *    *           *
     *              *
*              *

I'm struggling to see any "connections" in this graph, the two major ones I have found so far are: 1) C is present in both positive events 2) E is not present in both positive events

However, both of these factors are also present/not present in opposite event results. I'm assuming that I'm missing something key here. It would be very much appreciated if someone were to explain a methodology by which to solve a table like this. Thank you!

  • Is the problem any more precise? Are you supposed to find exactly one cause? Can you assume that one factor cancels another (e.g., E negates B), or that factors are irrelevant (e.g., A+D, therefore No Event)? – Mark Andrews Dec 2 '17 at 2:35
  • @MarkAndrews unfortunately not. All I am instructed to do is find "the cause of the event". For clarification, * indicates that the relevant factor or event was present. – Ben Dec 2 '17 at 3:12
1

Here is the best I could come up with: C is the cause, but E negates C.

This is what we know.

(A+C+D) = Event

(A+D) = No Event

(B+C) = Event

(B+E) = No Event

Those two pairs isolate C as the cause. But then there is:

(A+C+E) = No event.

If one assumes that E negates C, that premise explains the last equation and renders all five statements consistent.

For what it's worth, there is my answer. I am not happy with it. Please do post the solution when you have it.

  • This was correct, supposedly due to the joint method of agreement and difference. Thank you for the help! – Ben Dec 5 '17 at 21:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.