Establishing A is confused with “having established” the cause of A

I have trouble understanding this sentence:

1. Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause of that event. (from an LSAT)

What is the implication for the sentence to have "having established" after "with"?

I was thinking how 1. reveals a different nuance as opposed to:

2. Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with establishing the cause of that event.

Could someone please help explain?

Thank you very much,

Leon

Solution 1:

The overall structure of the sentence is "A is confused with B". "A" is the noun phrase "Establishing that a certain event occurred", while "B" is also a noun phrase "having established the cause of the event".

To establish in this context is to prove, and to confuse two things is to mistake one for the other. The writer is stating that somebody has mixed up two different things - A:proving that something happened, and B:proving what its cause was.

Solution 2:

“Having established” signifies an outcome, whereas “establishing” signifies work in progress. Can’t be certain without a context, but most likely the given sentence aims to underscore the difference between learning what happened (a process) and knowing why it happened (an outcome).