Final answer:
A causal argument passes the Pragmatic Fallacy Test when it demonstrates a cause-and-effect relationship validly, avoiding logical fallacies such as begging the question and unsupported assumptions.
Step-by-step explanation:
A causal argument passes the Pragmatic Fallacy Test (PFT) when it successfully establishes a cause-and-effect relationship without committing pragmatic fallacies such as appealing to the absence of evidence as evidence for a conclusion, or circular reasoning. An argument is considered valid if it follows a logical structure where the premises, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion.
In constructing a causal argument, one must be careful to avoid logical fallacies, including:
Begging the question, which occurs when the conclusion that one is trying to prove is assumed within the argument itself, resulting in circular reasoning.
Mistaking a lack of evidence for or against a cause as evidence for another cause.
A well-constructed causal argument also specifically rules out competing skeptical hypotheses (SH), thereby justifying belief in the proposed cause.
Example of a Valid Causal Argument Pattern
If P (specific cause) then Q (phenomenon).
Q (phenomenon) is happening.
Therefore, P (specific cause) is the cause of Q (phenomenon).
This structure shows that if the cause is true, then the effect necessarily follows, and if the effect is observed, the cause can be inferred. However, it is crucial that other potential causes are thoroughly eliminated before drawing the conclusion.