六、因果关系错误

要确定正确的因果关系，至少要排除两类错误：一是因为两件事情是同时或先后发生就认为它们之间一定有因果关系；二是因为两件事情有紧密联系，就默认A是B的原因，而事实上B才是A的原因，即将因果倒置。在GMAT中主要有两类因果关系方面的逻辑错误：一类是因果论述不通畅，一类是因果关系达不成。

因果论述不通畅

因果论述不通畅是指虽然一个因果关系可以达成，但是这条因果线上其实存在很多原因和结果，它只走了其中的一根线。但事实上，在没有给出足够信息的时候，不能简单地去判定一个因素是唯一的原因或最重要的原因，一个结果是唯一的结果或影响最大的结果。

具体结合例题如下（Day 5）：

The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery：

“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing.These delays，in turn，are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals.Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business，psychology，and sociology，but knows little about the properties of metals.The company should，therefore，move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.”

“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing.”中利润的下降与生产的延迟，因为是在同一个时间段发生，就可以简单地归纳为简单的因果关系吗？即便有因果关系，就一定是利润下降的唯一原因吗？一定是利润下降的最重要原因吗？有没有可能是其他因素造成了利润的下降？

因果关系达不成

因果关系达不成是指一个因果关系中的因果走不通。在前面的情况中，因果关系是可能达成的，线是可以走通的，而因果关系达不成的情况则是这条线彻底走不通。例如“Violence in movies has bad effect on children，therefore no one should see violent movies.”（暴力电影可能会对儿童有负面的影响，所以所有人都不应该看暴力电影）。在此论述里，因果出现了对象的不一致，前言不搭后语。对孩子有负面的影响，那么成年人为什么也不应该看呢？

具体结合例题如下（Day 80）：

The following appeared as part of an article in an entertainment magazine：

“A series of books based on the characters from a popular movie are consistently best sellers in local bookstores.Seeking to capitalize on the books’success，Vista Studios is planning to produce a movie sequel based on the books.Due to the success of the books and the original movie，the sequel will undoubtedly be profitable.”

原文有一个基本的错误：简单地将因果关系对应了起来。文章第一句“A series of books based on the characters from a popular movie are consistently best sellers in local bookstores.”作为事实句强调，以热门电影的人物为蓝本的书籍是畅销书籍；而原文尝试得出的结论则是最后一句的后半部分“the sequel will undoubtedly be profitable.”，即要从

这些书籍之中再衍生出新的电影也会取得成功，这之间的逻辑成立吗？