#14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many of which eventually

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus concludes that since regional dialects are responses by local populations to their own particular communicative needs, the adoption of a universal language in international trade will inevitably cause this language to develop many regional dialects. Whenever the author says that something is "inevitable," you should suspect that it is not. In this particular instance, the development of regional dialects within the universal language is only required if we assume that the local populations practicing international trade vary in their communicative needs. If everyone practicing international trade had the same general communicative need, the development of regional dialects need not occur.

Answer choice (A): Since the conclusion is about the adoption of a universal language in international trade, you need to look for an answer choice which addressees this issue. Even if two local populations had the same communicative need, they may still share a regional dialect different from everyone else. Because the logical opposite of this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, answer choice (A) is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Since our argument is specific to the language of international trade and its own regional dialects, those who do not engage in it have no bearing on its conclusion. Even if everyone around the world engaged in international trade, the possibility of this language developing many regional dialects will still exist.

This answer choice is attractive if you misread the author's conclusion: she never argued that some populations' regional dialects will persist after the unification of the world economy — only that the language of international trade will develop them. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): It is not necessary that the universal language for use in international trade be dependent on the unification of the world economy. Even if such language arises for some other reason, the conclusion of the argument still follows.

Answer choice (D): The implications that stem from the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade are irrelevant to this conclusion, which is not about the replacement of regional dialects of local languages with those of international trade. The eradication of local languages or their dialects is therefore not essential to this argument.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. For the universal language to develop into regional dialects, it is necessary that the local populations practicing international trade vary in their communicative needs. If they did not, the argument would not be solid.

[prep88]

Hi everyone!

Can anyone, please, help me to logically negate answer choice (C)?

Thank you!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi prep88,

To logically negate a conditional reasoning statement, you need to say that the sufficient condition can occur even in the absence of the necessary condition. Here, answer choice (C) states that,

A universal language for use in international trade will not arise unless the world economy is unified.

When diagramed, this statement would look like this:

Universal Language for IT Unified World Economy

The logical opposite would be to say that a universal language [...] can arise even if the world economy is not unified, i.e. the sufficient condition can be met even in the absence of the necessary condition.

Hope this helps!

[laurat]

Hello,

Would D be a contender if this were a strengthen question? I chose D thinking that it was a Defender answer-eliminating the possibility that people could continue to use their regional dialects for their specific needs while still using universal language for international trade.

I see now that E is essentially restating the conclusion (right?) and is correct, but I wonder if I misunderstood the stem, and chose D because it fit my (not stringent enough) prephrase.

Thanks!

(my own note: 5-63)

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Laura,

I believe that I understand what you’re getting at here, but please correct me if I’m wrong. You reason that if local dialects go extinct, then it is more likely that people will develop a dialect of the universal trade language, since people could otherwise use the universal language for trade and local dialects for their own communicative needs. In this way, the extinction of local dialects will strengthen the chance that people will create dialects of a universal trade language. Did I get that right?

I don't believe that choice (D) would strengthen the conclusion. My reading of the facts of the Stimulus are that people in different trade communities will develop dialects of a universal language. The speaker is not alleging that local communities will stop speaking their languages or dialects in the home and start using the universal language in all circumstances, but that when people conduct international trade in a universal language, there will arise a dialect of universal trade language among traders and business people in e.g. Central Asia that is different from the dialect of universal trade language among people in Central America.

Since the conclusion restricts its scope to language of international trade, knowing what people speak at home, in school, in local trade, etc... wouldn't strengthen the conclusion.