Distinguish a Cause from a Coincidence

Principle: timing is not proof

When one event happens before another, the order may make a causal explanation seem plausible. But sequence alone does not show that the first event produced the second. A change might have another explanation, or the two events might simply have occurred at the same time. In a paragraph, the problem often appears in a confident verb: “caused,” “led to,” or “made.” Those words promise more than “followed” or “happened alongside.” Before revising, ask what the paragraph actually establishes. If it gives a reason to connect the events, explain that reasoning. If it does not, choose wording that reflects the uncertainty.

Method: test the connection

Use three questions. First, what are the two events, and which one does the writer say came first? Second, what evidence or reasoning links them, beyond their timing? For instance, does the paragraph describe a relevant change in conditions, or explain a plausible process? Third, what else could account for the later event? You do not need to invent an alternative explanation; simply recognize when the paragraph has not ruled one out. If the connection is well supported by the information available, state the reasoning plainly. If the paragraph only reports timing, replace a causal claim with a more accurate description, such as “came after,” “coincided with,” or “may have contributed.” Cautious wording is not a substitute for evidence; it is a way to avoid claiming more than the paragraph can show.

Worked demonstration: a club meeting

The example below is entirely fictional. Its details are invented for practice, not reported research. The first version turns a sequence into a cause: “The school’s fictional art club put a sign near the library on Monday. More students attended its Wednesday meeting, so the sign increased attendance.” The sign came before the higher attendance, but the paragraph does not explain why the sign led to the change or whether anything else changed. A revision should not quietly make up that missing evidence. Instead, it can describe what is known and limit the claim: “In this fictional example, more students attended the art club’s Wednesday meeting after a sign was placed near the library on Monday. That timing is consistent with the sign having helped, but the paragraph does not show that the sign caused the increase. Other explanations have not been examined.” The revision distinguishes observation from interpretation. It does not claim the sign had no effect; it says the paragraph has not established that effect.

Substantial revision: make the reasoning visible

Before: “The fictional community center moved its invented board-game evening from Tuesday to Thursday, and more people came to the next session. The new schedule caused the increase because Thursday was clearly a better time. This proves that changing the day is an effective way to attract participants. The center should keep the Thursday schedule so attendance stays high.”

After: “In this fictional example, more people attended the community center’s next board-game evening after it moved the session from Tuesday to Thursday. That change may have contributed to the higher attendance if the new time was more convenient for some participants. However, the paragraph gives no information about participants’ schedules or about other changes between sessions, so it cannot show that the new day caused the increase. The careful conclusion is that attendance rose after the schedule changed; whether Thursday was the reason remains uncertain.”

Why it works: The revision preserves the two stated events but separates them from the writer’s explanation. “May have contributed” signals a possible cause rather than a proven one. The sentence beginning “However” names the missing reasoning: the paragraph does not establish that the new time was more convenient, and it does not address other changes. The conclusion then matches the available details. It avoids both the unsupported claim that Thursday caused the increase and the opposite unsupported claim that Thursday had no effect.

Check the claim before you finish

Underline any causal verbs in your paragraph and ask whether the surrounding sentences support them. If your explanation depends on a fact not included in the paragraph, either provide that support from material you are allowed to use or remove the claim. If the only established point is that one event came after another, say so directly. Finally, check that your conclusion does not become more certain than your explanation. A qualified claim can still be clear: name the observed sequence, state what it might suggest, and identify what remains unknown.