#19 - If understanding a word always involves knowing

[queenbee]

Hi
I actually thought (B) was the correct answer. The stimulus states that there are people (one example being babies) who do not know the dictionary definitions of the words they utter. That seemed to line up with (B): Any number of people can understand some words without knowing their dictionary definitions. Babies may understand the meaning of "Mama or Papa or No" without knowing the dictionary definitions. In addition, they may not understand all the words they utter. So, I would think that any number of people can know "SOME" words without knowing the dictionary definitions. (E) indicates that some babies need to understand "ALL" words they utter. Why that need to be an "all or nothing" type of criteria? Can't they understand just a few and that be sufficient?

Thanks so much for the help.

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

We are not given any way to judge how people are able to unable to understand words in the stimulus. The first sentence of the stimulus presents a hypothetical way to define "understanding a word, " but doesn't commit to thinking that's the correct definition. So...we actually don't know if anyone understands or fails to understand any words. I don't know what "understanding" means in this stimulus. It's not defined. Answer choice (B) is therefore incorrect because it requires new information.

Answer choice (E) does not indicate that babies need to understand all the words they utter. It's a conditional statement. As with any conditional, stating the sufficient condition of it does not commit one to thinking the sufficient condition is true. Consider the following:

"If I take a break for lunch now, I'll be working until at least 8 PM tonight."

Nothing there commits me to have to take a break for lunch now. I'm just expressing the consequences of doing so, were I to do so. I might even use that conditional to prove to myself that I don't want to take a break for lunch now, because I'd otherwise be working later than I desire.

Similarly in the present stimulus, the author is not claiming that some babies, or any babies, understand all the words they utter. The author is simply stating what consequences would happen if some DID. So, let's think: if some babies understand all words they utter, and we know already from the stimulus that no baby knows the dictionary definition of every word it utters, then those "some babies" in the sufficient condition of answer choice (E) understand at least one word such that they don't know its dictionary definition. Thus, that sufficient condition, if true, would prove that someone understands a word without knowing its dictionary definition. That proves the necessary condition true, so the conditional is a valid inference from the stimulus. Thus, answer choice (E) is correct.

Robert Carroll