- Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:00 pm
#33419
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this dialogue, the philosopher attempts to show why linguists do not have a deep understanding of language. As evidence, he points to two sentences that are physically different but identical in meaning. The philosopher’s argument has the following structure:
The philosopher’s argument is severely flawed, making the linguist’s job relatively easy. One cannot prove that two sentences have different meanings just because they are physically different from each other. This is a classic error of equivocation, where the philosopher uses the term “identical” in two different senses: physically identical and identical in meaning. To weaken his argument, the linguist could point out that the physical difference between the two sentences has no bearing on the question of whether or not they mean the same thing. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (D).
Answer choice (A): The linguist need not prove that the sentences are completely identical, only that they are identical in meaning.
Answer choice (B): The fact that two sentences can be physically identical but mean different things has no bearing on the question of whether they can be physically different but mean the same thing.
Answer choice (C): While it is true that Joan is Ivan’s sibling if Ivan is Joan’s sibling, the point at issue has little to do with what a “sibling” is.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the two sentences do not need to be completely identical in order to mean the same thing, the philosopher’s argument is seriously weakened. This exposes the main flaw in his argument, and validates the linguist’s claim that the sentences are identical in meaning.
Answer choice (E): The linguist cannot counter the philosopher’s argument by pointing to his own experience or expertise. This would be an “appeal fallacy,” where the author invokes his own position of authority to persuade the reader. Such arguments are always inherently weak, and would not provide a strong logical counter.
Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this dialogue, the philosopher attempts to show why linguists do not have a deep understanding of language. As evidence, he points to two sentences that are physically different but identical in meaning. The philosopher’s argument has the following structure:
- Sentence A = Joan and Ivan are siblings
Sentence B = Ivan and Joan are siblings
Premise (1): Sentences A and B are physically different.
Premise (2): For two things to be identical, they must have all the same attributes.
Conclusion: Sentences A and B are not identical in meaning.
The philosopher’s argument is severely flawed, making the linguist’s job relatively easy. One cannot prove that two sentences have different meanings just because they are physically different from each other. This is a classic error of equivocation, where the philosopher uses the term “identical” in two different senses: physically identical and identical in meaning. To weaken his argument, the linguist could point out that the physical difference between the two sentences has no bearing on the question of whether or not they mean the same thing. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (D).
Answer choice (A): The linguist need not prove that the sentences are completely identical, only that they are identical in meaning.
Answer choice (B): The fact that two sentences can be physically identical but mean different things has no bearing on the question of whether they can be physically different but mean the same thing.
Answer choice (C): While it is true that Joan is Ivan’s sibling if Ivan is Joan’s sibling, the point at issue has little to do with what a “sibling” is.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the two sentences do not need to be completely identical in order to mean the same thing, the philosopher’s argument is seriously weakened. This exposes the main flaw in his argument, and validates the linguist’s claim that the sentences are identical in meaning.
Answer choice (E): The linguist cannot counter the philosopher’s argument by pointing to his own experience or expertise. This would be an “appeal fallacy,” where the author invokes his own position of authority to persuade the reader. Such arguments are always inherently weak, and would not provide a strong logical counter.