...In Argument Theory. Not in the current context though, as the poster (hi there) expressed something quite different. Details around, if the original post does not suffice.

What I meant is there literally: you have to «investigat[e] the paths of causation», which is meant to mean, you cannot (should not) practically fight the full correlated context, but the specific cause.

I.e., in the picked metaphor: "you do not blame life for death" - find specific causes and curb them.

Which, by the way, if the "«midwit»" reference were still applicable, is beyond "IQ", because what was expressed is meant to be "in the set of basics" - yet to appearance absent in the article. I expressed that the article seems to miss that basic point.

I.e., the idea that "smartphones and social media" would be detrimental is extremely cheap, as if saying that "heating is polluting" - yes, and also useful, so you identify the weak parts and try to act on them.