A common pain reliever has become the center of a heated debate. Some commentators have claimed do 1that taking Tylenol during pregnancy may contribute to autism in children, pointing to studies that show a statistical association between prenatal acetaminophen use and later autism diagnoses. But does that association actually prove causation?

In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, Andrew Leahey breaks down the reasoning behind that claim using the same analytical tools tested on the LSAT. Observational studies can reveal patterns in data—but patterns alone don’t establish cause and effect. When two things occur together, there may be other explanations: underlying illness, confounding variables, or broader health factors that influence both medication use and developmental outcomes.

Using this real-world example, the episode explores one of the most common reasoning flaws tested on the LSAT: mistaking correlation for causation. The question isn’t whether the research is worth studying—it’s whether the argument built on that research actually supports the conclusion being drawn.

If you want to sharpen your ability to spot weak reasoning in science, media, and public debate, this episode shows how LSAT logic can help separate evidence from inference.