But your example itself posits that, hypothetically, your father caught the virus and died sooner than he otherwise would have, just from COPD. Had he just had COPD, he would’ve lived a week longer. It seems clear that, in your example, catching the virus is the thing that actually precipitates his passing. To me, that would thus be the actual cause of his death.
I’m genuinely curious to understand your point of view (and I’ve been reading tons of LSAT logic questions lately) so I would be grateful if you would indulge me and tell me your perspective on this situation (which follows your logic as I understand it):
Person X has COPD.
Person X is inattentive while walking and gets hit by a bus. They are rushed to the hospital and need immediate and complex surgery that requires they be put on a ventilator.
It is presumably true that someone NOT suffering from COPD might have a better chance of living through surgery (and eventually recovering from this massive trauma) than someone whose pulmonary system is already compromised by a disease like COPD.
If Person X sadly did not survive the surgery, would you say that ultimately their cause of death was COPD, and not being hit by a bus?
Also, I’m very sorry for the loss of your father.
