#12 - In many languages other than English there is a word

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I don't think (A) says anything about the argument since in this case it is the English that has the basic words for color fewer than Russian, thus I think (A) is inapplicable. Is it right?
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I don't think (A) says anything about the argument since in this case it is the English that has the basic words for color fewer than Russian, thus I think (A) is inapplicable. Is it right?
Thanks!

Hello,

It gets a little convoluted here, but the logic of A works even if English has only one basic word for "blue", and the Russians have more words here. Here, the English-speakers can distinguish various shades, even though they have fewer words than Russians. So the *general principle* that if you have fewer words, you can't distinguish as many colors, is attacked.

David

[oli_oops]

Hi,

First of, thank you Powerscore staff for posting all these explanations!! They really help A LOT.

Can someone please elaborately explain why (A) is the correct answer?
In the conclusion, it clearly stated that "Therefore...*than English*....", why would (A) be the correct answer choice?

I read the explanation posted above (in 2013) but I still feel like it was quite forced...?

Thank you so much!

[James Finch]

Hi Oli,

The main conclusion in the stimulus is stating that people who natively speak English perceive more colors than do who native speakers of languages with fewer "basic words" for colors than English has, based on evidence that the greater number of words for similar things, the more distinctions are being perceived between those things.

Answer choice (A) effectively negates this as evidence, however, by showing that there is no causal link between having more words and being able to perceive distinctions within a certain color, since English can simply modify the basic noun "blue" with adjectives like "light" or "dark" (or by extension "navy" or "sky," etc.) Just because Russian has two completely separate nouns, thus making a stronger distinction (separate colors) between what English speakers would regard as shades of the same color, doesn't mean that English speakers don't actually perceive those distinctions. It becomes a matter of emphasis, rather than ability, which removes the key premise for the conclusion in the stimulus, making the argument unsupported and thus less likely to be true.

Hope this clears things up!

[JocelynL]

Hello,
This one really stumped me

When I read the conclusion, at first I thought "causal" so I diagrammed:
Cause - fewer basic words for colors
Effect - unable to distinguish as many colors

Based on this, I chose E. As I started typing my reason for choosing E I realized, wow my reasoning is pretty bad for why E is correct lol. Would E actually strengthen the conclusion by showing that both the cause and effect are absent?

So I went back to the conclusion and saw the "MUST be perceptually unable to distinguish" and thought it was a conditional statement not causal. So I diagrammed:

Fewer basic words unable to distinguish as many colors

I remember reading that to undermine a conditional statement, you need an answer choice that removes the necessary condition. I see that A does remove the necessary condition in the above diagram, and I remember a quantity term of "few" means three or more but since A says "two different basic words" I couldn't see why its right.

SO basically I'm going in circles trying to even figure out if this conclusion is causal or conditional and how to even attack it. Please help!

[JocelynL]

correcting an error in my previous post! A few means TWO or more, so now I can see why A is correct!

So is it safe to say this conclusion is conditional not causal ?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Jocelyn!

Technically, yes that conclusion is conditional because it contains the "must" necessary indicator, as you noted. Answer choice (A) shows that a language can have fewer basic words for color and speakers can still be able to perceptually distinguish a larger number of different colors than they have words for, meaning you can have the sufficient condition (fewer basic words for color) as stated in the conclusion without the necessary condition (being unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of languages with more words for color).

But "fewer" does not mean the same thing as "a few." "Fewer" is a relative term. It just means that you have less as compared to something else. So having fewer words does not mean that you only have a few words. It means that you have a smaller number of words than another language.

In answer choice (A), English has one basic word that is used for two different shades of blue, whereas Russian has two different words, one for each shade. So English has fewer basic words for color than Russian (1 word is less than 2 words) yet English speakers can still perceive just as many different colors as Russian speakers because they can distinguish between the different shades even though they don't have different words for those shades.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[pklopfen]

Hi,

Here is where I am hung up: The conclusion specifically references "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English..." The correct answer (A) is not referencing anything to do with speakers of languages with fewer basic words for English. In fact, it is referencing speakers of English and speakers of of a language with MORE words than English. While I would agree that the answer would weaken the argument if the conclusion stated "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than other languages..." But it doesn't say that. It specifically says English.

I guess my overall problem is that we are constantly being told to "READ CLOSELY" when studying for the LSAT, yet when we read this question as it was written and use the exact language they are using to find correct answers, we are told that the correct answer specifically overlooks the words "than English" in the conclusion. Can you explain this discrepancy and maybe how we are supposed to know when we need to choose to overlook specific wording on the LSAT when so much of it seems to be designed to test a very exact and specific reading? Thanks!

[evelineliu]

Hi there,

The author concludes that when a language has fewer words for color than English does, speakers of that language must be "perceptually unable" to distinguish as many colors as English speakers can. The author believes there is not simply a linguistic difference, but there is a perception difference. (A) undermines this conclusion by breaking the connection between words and perception. If we can break that connection between words and perception, that will work for English and a language with fewer words for color than English AND it will also work for a language with more words for color than English and English.

Russian has two different words for the shade of blue, but English has only one word, yet English speakers are able to distinguish between the colors perceptually. This suggests that the lack of a word to describe a color does not imply lack of ability to perceive that color.

Hope that helps,
Eveline