#16 - We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished

[sunshine123]

Hello,

I incorrectly chose A for this question. I reasoned that the existence of a word such as fish would provide evidence for the existence of a sea or some body of water PROVIDED that I took for granted what the author said: that we can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Am I allowed to assume this for a weaken question? Does the author's first sentence, that words provide evidence for the environment, stand as a legitimate principle that I should take into account? If so, why does it not work for this question? Afterall, reasoning from the word fish to sea is not so different from reasoning from the word "snow" to cold climate(as the author did). Thanks for the help(this is my first post to a powerscore forum by the way, although I've been reading them for ages now - strange feeling).

[katehos]

Hi sunshine123!

In a Weaken question, the information contained within the stimulus is suspect and you can treat it as such. There are oftentimes errors in reasoning and one of the big issues with this stimulus is the leap from potentially being able to learn about living conditions through language to asserting that people who spoke a certain language lived in a certain, isolated climate. So, even if it's possible to learn about the living conditions of a culture from its language, does the first sentence actually assert that this is always the case? No! What if Proto-Indo-European speakers learned the word meaning "fish" through trade? Or from stories of other people they interacted with?

Another compelling reason to reject (A) comes from the conclusion itself: that speakers were isolated from the "ocean or sea". Fish can live in other bodies of water, such as lakes or ponds, so the existence of the word "fish" does necessarily weaken the conclusion that Proto-Indo-European speakers were isolated from the ocean/sea. After all, it's entirely possible to live near a lake with fish and still live far away from an ocean or sea.

Answer choice (B), on the other hand, shows that some languages do not have words for prominent features of the environment of those who speak the language which makes the lack of a word for "sea" not particularly compelling evidence that Proto-Indo-European speakers were isolated from ocean or sea. (B) does a great job of targeting the stimulus' logical leap from the first sentence to the conclusion.

I hope this helps
Kate

[sunshine123]

Very helpful, thank you Kate!

[nicizle]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this question. I knew it was either going to be A or B as the correct answer choice, but these both seem to be equal weakeners, and the defenses used for justifying why B is a worse answer could also be said about A. I don't see how one of these answers distinctively tips the scale for being the better answer.

I chose A because I felt it was a more direct weakener that could suggest that they were exposed to a sea or any other body of water at a certain point. I understand that this could apply to any body of water and not just the sea, which is why A is an imperfect weakener.

Nonetheless, for B, "some" is incredibly weak. This could mean one or two languages at best. I've noticed that in weaken/strengthen questions, ambiguous qualifiers like "some" and "many" usually indicate a wrong answer choice, as the qualifiers themselves are too weak to account for a strong answer choice.

How are we supposed to know which weakener is better or worse, when they both are weak weakeners, and there are just as many pros and cons to justify why an answer is right or wrong? What makes B a better answer? Just because, for example, two languages lack words for prominent elements doesn't really profoundly weaken the possibility that a language lacking certain words for an element can mean that element wasn't a part of that culture.

If B had said "most," I'd have picked it without a doubt. Ugh.

[Adam Tyson]

A does nothing at all to weaken the argument, nicizle, because fish are found in many places, not just in the sea. Fish are in lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, to name just a few. Having a word for "fish" doesn't suggest that these people lived near the sea, any more than having a word for "water" does.

Answer B weakens, because it means that not having a word for something doesn't mean that thing is not present in your environment. You can live near mountains and not have a word for mountains; you can live a desert without having a word that means desert. Thus, the lack of a word for "sea" is no reason to conclude that it's likely they didn't live near the sea. Answer B takes all the force out of the evidence, allowing us to say "so what if they don't have a word for sea? That happens, no big deal." You're right that it would weaken even more if we knew that most languages were like that, but the answer still does some damage, while A does not.