In the canon of modern American poetry as music, one work, understated though it may be, stands apart. Only from the mind of artist Joe Nichols, recently of the venerable organization Show-Dog Universal Music, could a song of such unique aesthetic and moral quality emerge. Yet, despite its undeniable cultural presence, this seminal work by Mr. Nichols presents a logical claim that, to this day, has created protracted debate within the departments of philosophy at most esteemed universities. In short, can tequila cause a person's clothes to fall off?
An exhaustive reading of the text reflects that the support for this bold causal conclusion may be nothing more than a series of positive correlations. Certainly, the evidence presented by Mr. Nichols appears to estabslish some relationship between drinking tequila and clothes falling off. However, any student of the LSAT will tell you that a mere correlation does not a causal relationship make.
Because by definition a cause must precede in time the effect, we must demand of Mr. Nichols more information regarding the precise timing of the consumption of tequlia and the public divestment. Without such information, it may be just as likely that the act of taking off one's clothes results in the consumption of tequila.
We must also consider the possibility that some other factor, not fully described in the work at issue, is present just prior to both the tequila shots and the loss of clothing. For example, was shell fish on the menu? If so, are we actually dealing with the intentional removal of clothing, secondary to some allergic reaction, rather than tequila induced clothing malfunctions?
Also, did everyone who drank tequila suffer the same, breezy fate? If tequila actually is the cause of people's clothes falling off, then we would expect that cause to have the same effect each time tequila is consumed. Of additional interest would be any documented cases in which a person's clothes have fallen off in the absence of tequila. Such information regarding the presence of the purported effect in the absence of the suspected cause would tend to challenge Mr. Nichols' causal conclusion. For example, more work may need to be done to investigate the possibility of spikes in gravitational forces near and within tiki bars. Also, the epicenters of these observed effects should be tested for unusual magnetic activity, with the results cross-referenced against the propensity of tequila drinkers to wear metallic clothing or accessories. Further, there may exist heretofore unremedied deficiencies in the casual beach wear manufacturing industry leading to systemic product failure.
These are all important questions. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Nichols not only for his art, but also for spurring a debate that is certain to rage on, prompting years of invaluable research and experimentation. If you would like develop the skills necessary to fully examine and contribute to this logical reasoning debate, you would do well to continue your LSAT preparation. Make no mistake, time is of the essence.