Casual Argument

The website provided about cause and effect arguing was  a helpful reading on understanding certain arguments that are used to prove that something is someone else's fault. The example given about the car accident is a perfect way of explaining how people such as lawyers use the "cause and effect" argument. While I personally would have put blame on the illegally parked truck because he was the initial cause of the incident. If he hadn't been parked there than the bicyclist wouldn't have swerved which then means the car never would have stomped on their brakes causing the accident. The bicyclist's lawyer used this as the bicyclist's reason, but the other lawyers blamed the person directly in front of them. This is the main concept of "cause and effect." If it the illegally parked car wasn't there than the bike never would have swerved; if the bike never swerved then the car never would have stopped; and if the car never stopped than the second car never would have crashed. The three main points to a casual argument are:
 1.how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is
 2. how likely the case for causation seems to be
 3. how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is

This better helped me understand how a cause and effect argument is used and how a casual argument is often not informative enough.