#21 - English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument in this stimulus is that since English and Mbarbaram are unrelated, and since no speakers of those languages contacted each other before both languages used "dog" to mean "canine," it must be true that sometimes shared words in languages have nothing to do with relatedness, and nothing to do with borrowing.

The stimulus is based on evidence, and thus is subject to the introduction of new evidence. It requires assumptions that defend it from potentially damaging evidence.

You can predict this response. The problem with the stimulus is that it acts as if English and Mbarbaram are the only two languages we should worry about. But a third language could serve as a bridge, so the use of "dog" might be attributable to borrowing, after all.

Essentially, the stimulus argued that English and Mbarbaram independently caused the word "dog," but it is possible that a third language served as a bridge. It could be possible, for example, that the third language contributed the word itself, so neither English nor Mbarbaram caused the word "dog." It could also be possible that English caused the word "dog," the third language picked it up, and transferred it to Mbarbaram, or the reverse.

Every time this type of relationship appears, the argument will require defense from a "bridging" element.

Answer choice (A): This information is inessential to the argument, and this response is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This response weakens the argument, because it establishes potential bridges. Eliminate this choice.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus is about what is sometimes the case, not about what is usually the case, so this response is irrelevant, and incorrect. Besides, it could only damage the argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, and eliminates a possible bridging language, as discussed.

Answer choice (E): Since this response attacks the conclusion, it is incorrect.

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I definately prephrased answer choice (D) but still ultimately chose (A) over it. I thought (D) was incorrect because the author states that sometimes when languages share words that sound and mean the same, it isn't because of borrowing or language relatedness. I thought the occurence of "sometimes" included instances like (D). So, the author is also accounting for situations in which the language share words that is due to language relatedness or borrowing.

On another note, how is this causal reasoning? I don't see anything to indicate that the author is assuming that something is causing something else.

When negated, I got the following:

(A) English and Mbarbaram share words other than "dog". I thought this weakened the portion of the authors argument that discusses "language relatedness" because both languages share other words. This can mean that the language is acutally more related than we thought.


(D) There is a third language from which both English and Mbarbaram borrowed the word dog. As mentioned before, I assumed this didn't weaken the argument because the author uses a probability clause ("sometimes") to introduce their conclusion. It was my understanding that, by introducing sometimes, the author accounts for (D) as a possibility.

Can anyone help with this? Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Andriana!

This is a causal argument because the stimulus is discussing what led to (or caused) the word "dog" to be used in English and Mbarbaram. The author concludes that the two languages must have independently caused the word "dog" because he states that "the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing" ("due to" is a causal indicator, as it refers to something being caused by something else). So the author is saying that the use of the word "dog" in both of these languages is not caused by language relatedness or borrowing.

You correctly negated answer choices (A) and (D) but your analysis of how they impact the conclusion is a little off. The conclusion is that the case of English and Mbarbaram sharing a word even though they are completely unrelated and did not come into contact with each other before the word was derived in each language shows that you can have similar words in different languages that are not caused by language relatedness or borrowing.

The negation of (A), as you correctly identified, would say that English and Mbarbaram share other words. This would actually strengthen the argument. If the two languages share multiple words even though they are unrelated, that would strengthen the conclusion that sometimes languages can have similar words that are not caused by language relatedness. (The premises tell us that the two languages are unrelated, so we have to accept that as a fact. When you attack an argument, don't try to disprove a premise, try to show that the premise does not actually equal the conclusion.)

The negation of (D), again as you correctly identified, would say that there is a third language from which both English and Mabrabaram borrowed the word "dog." The full conclusion is that this case shows that sometimes similar words in different languages are not caused by language relatedness or borrowing. If the case of the word "dog" in English and Mbarbaram is actually an example of borrowing, that would destroy the argument that this case shows that similar words can arise without borrowing. The example of the word "dog" is supposed to show what can sometimes be true about languages. If that example is no longer an example of what the author concludes can sometimes happen, that severely weakens the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey