#17 - Being articulate has been equated with having a large

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption: The correct answer choice is (A)

The gap in this stimulus is that there is no connection between the concept of being articulate and the ability to express oneself when no available words seem adequate. Since this is an assumption question, we must therefore find the answer that bridges that gap between the premises and the conclusion.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This statement makes the necessary connection between being articulate and the capacity to express oneself when their vocabulary seems inadequate. If such a connection cannot be made between those two concepts, the argument cannot stand. Therefore, this statement is a necessary assumption that must be made.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice does not make the necessary link between the premises and the conclusion. The link that needs to be made is not between the ability to express oneself creatively and the motivation to acquire large vocabularies.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice directly contradicts the stimulus, which states that a large vocabulary is a hindrance to using language in an articulate way. Since the stimulus author would disagree with this statement, it cannot be an assumption on which the argument depends.

Answer Choice (D): While the stimulus author would likely agree with this statement, it is not an assumption on which the argument depends. This would be more of an action to take on the basis of the argument than an assumption of the argument.

Answer Choice (E): This statement is irrelevant to the argument. The stimulus author may disagree with this statement, as it somewhat contradicts the overall idea that large vocabularies keep individuals from having to face situations in which they do not have sufficient words available.

[scharles35]

I am having a hard time trying to understand Assumption questions, its kind of a hit or miss. Whenever I answer a question wrong and go over the correct answer I usually after reading the correct answer understand why i got the question wrong =, but not this this question.

The question reads:
Being articulate has been equated with having a large vocab. Actually, however, ppl w/ large vocab have no incentive fr, and tend not to engage in, the kine of creative linguistic self-expression that is required when no available words seem adequate. thus a large vacab is a hindrance to using language in a truly articulate way.

I thought that answer was (E) but te correct answer is (A) can someone help me to understand why and maybe help explain how to /tricks to solve Assumption questions?

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Good question. In that one, the author says that people who have big vocabularies don't take part in the creative process of expressing themselves when there are seemingly no adequate words. The author concludes that a big vocabulary can keep one from being truly articulate.

Premise: big vocabulary NO self-expression when without adequate words

Conclusion: big vocabulary NOT truly articulate

The supporter assumption required by this conclusion must link the two rogue elements,

"NO self-expression when no adequate words" and "NOT truly articulate"

Correct answer choice (A) provides that people who are truly articulate are able to express themselves when there are seemingly no adequate words:

truly articulate self-expression when without adequate words.

...and the contrapositive:

NO self-expression when without adequate words NOT truly articulate

When we add this to the premise from the stimulus, we get the following:

big vocabulary NO self-expression when without adequate words NOT truly articulate

This choice thus allows for the conclusion that a big vocabulary is a hindrance to being truly articulate.

Tough one! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

Steve

[scharles35]

Thank you !!

[egarcia193]

Hi,

I really got stuck in the stimulus and couldn't understand what they were trying to get across and just ended up guessing on this question. I seem to do the worst on questions when I can not understand the stimulus and what they are asking for or how they present the information. Is there any advice for understanding a stimulus that just doesn't seem to make sense what they are saying or what they are asking you to do? I know this isn't the most confusing question but this situation seems to happen to me very frequently in all question types.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi egarcia193,

To your overarching question,

Is there any advice for understanding a stimulus that just doesn't seem to make sense what they are saying or what they are asking you to do?

My response is--diagram! Keep your eye out for wording that could be diagrammed out as conditional reasoning. If you've translated everything correctly into your diagrams, then you can go back to look at those even if you didn't understand what you read. Looking at the shorthand version can often give you clarity.

In this particular question, we have the following conditional reasoning:


(p1) being articulate large vocabulary ("Being articulate has been equated with having a large vocabulary.")

(p2) large vocabulary incentive for self-expression when words are inadequate ("Actually, however, people with larger vocabularies have no incentive for, and tend not to engage in the kind of creative linguistic self expression that is required when no available words seem adequate.")

Conclusion: large vocabulary truly articulate ("Thus a large vocabulary is a hindrance to using language in a truly articulate way.")


This is an assumption question, and what we need is something to link to the new term "truly articulate" in the conclusion. Answer (A) does this. (A) states "When people are truly articulate, they have the capacity to express themselves in situations in which their vocabularies seem inadequate," or--

(3) truly articulate incentive for self-expression when words are inadequate

And if you take the contrapositive--

incentive for self-expression when words are inadequate truly articulate

then it becomes clear why (3) is an assumption that is necessary to add after (2) to allow the conclusion to follow.

[lathlee]

Hi. Even though I have no problem with all other remaining parts explanation but this part.
Being articulate has been equated with having a large vocabulary is Being articulate Large vocabulary.

shouldn't be Being Articulate having a large vocabulary considering word, Equated, is used?

[Daniel Stern]

Lathlee:

Although the first premise uses the term "equated," I think it might be dangerous to use the two way arrow here. I'd stick with the diagramming as given in the post above.

The first premise is giving a definition of the term "articulate," so it's telling us that the term "articulate" is sufficient to tell us something else. The words "has been equated with," could have been replaced by "has been defined as," for instance. So, it is the state of being articulate that tells us that we have a large vocabulary, not the other way around.

I say that there is danger in using the two way arrow because when we get further into diagramming the next premise and the conclusion, and the contrapositive of answer choice A, we want to be able to see how the incentive for self expression gets us back to the new term introduced in the conclusion, "truly articulate."

I hope that helps.

Best,
Dan

[jennyli0804]

Hi,

I still don't quite understand why (D) is wrong. Doesn't negating (D) attack the conclusion?

If it "isn't futile to try to increase the size of their vocabularies when educating people to be more articulate", then surely a "large vocabulary isn't a hindrance to using language in a truly articulate way."

I see how (D) doesn't really close the gap between the premise and the conclusion, but it also seems to work under the Assumption Negation Technique. That's why I'm kind of confused.

Thank you!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi jennyli0804,
I would have negated D to say something like "In educating people to be more articulate, it is not necessarily futile to try to increase the size of their vocabularies."
So in this case the stimulus is talking about people who already have large vocabularies not necessarily feeling the need to use their large vocabulary to be articulate.
Answer D (the futility of increasing vocabulary to make people more articulate) does not necessarily harm the argument. Let's take children as an example: We (people in general) are going to want to increase the size of a child's vocabulary in order to make them more articulate. This is because children are new to the world and new to language, so they do not already have a large vocabulary. If we leave children at the level of baby talk, "Want toy." without trying to increase their vocabulary they are not going to be very articulate. We can use the same example of children to show that saying that 'it is not necessarily futile to increase the size of someone's vocabulary' is not automatically going to hurt the claim that people with large vocabularies are less articulate. Increasing the vocabulary of a child doesn't automatically give them a large vocabulary, but it can make them more articulate that they were with an even smaller vocabulary.
Hope that helps!
-Malila