Q12 - In many languages other than

[magnumlifestyle]

Premises of the argument:
1. Languages other than English have seperate words ("mother's brother," "father's brother" for the same word in English ("uncle").
2. Such languages practice a more discriminated kinship system than English.
3. The number of words to describe color varies widely from language to language.

Conclusion: Speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English.

The question asks to pick an answer that weakens the conclusion.

I narrowed down the answer choices to C and A.

I chose C because I thought that it shows how languages that might have fewer basic words than English perceptually distinguish colors in a different way that shows they can distinguish the words similar to English speakers.

But the official answer is A. I don't really see how the fact that English speakers can distinguish ligther and dakrer blue while the Russian language has two seperate words for it undermines the stated conclusion above.

I'll appreciate any feedback you might have.

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Again another question where a solid understanding of conditional logic will really make the task at hand easier.

The conclusion is that if a society has fewer words, then they have less of an ability to distinguish.

Put into formal notation

~W --> ~D

Remember, to undermine a conditional statement you must first show that the sufficient condition is true, while at the same time showing that the necessary condition has not been met. To undermine this conclusion we would need an example of a society with fewer words but that has more of an ability to distinguish.

~W some D

Answer choice (A) says that some who can distinguish lack words

D some ~W (same thing presented in another order)

whereas answer choice (C) says some who have words lack the ability to distinguish

W some ~D

This fails to meet the sufficient condition of the conditional statement and so can't be said to undermine the conclusion.

(A) undermines the conclusion for the reasons above.
(B) only addresses the ability to distinguish but not about whether the society has various words to describe the objects.
(C) fails to undermine for the reasons above.
(D) address the various words, but doesn't tell us about varying abilities to distinguish colors.
(E) fails to address a varying degree in one's ability to distinguish colors, so could not be said to undermine the conditional relationship in the conclusion.


Some of the answers were for other readers and I went through them quickly. If you still need help seeing this, please let me know!

If you'd like a little extra practice with this concept check out the following examples of various question types all testing the same thing.

PT36, S3, Q19
PT44, S2, Q18
June 07, S3, Q25 (available at http://lsac.org/LSAT/lsat-prep-materials.asp)

[magnumlifestyle]

mshermn,

Thanks for taking time to answer my question.
I have a quick question though.

You say that "Answer choice (A) says that some who can distinguish lack words."

But I don't follow your logic.

Answer Choice (A) says "Speakers of English are able to distinguish between ligther and darker shades of the color they call "blue," for which Russian has two different basic words."

You claim that Russian has fewer words to describe color than English. Where in the answer choice do you derive this claim?

Also, if English speakers don't distinguish between ligther and darker blue, whereas Russian speakers do (by giving two different basic names, doesn't it mean that Russian speakers actually have more basic words to describe color than English speakers?), how can this answer choice possibly work when the stimulus specifically refers to languages that have fewer words than English?


Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I like the way you're thinking about what the words really mean!

That will serve you well as you prep for the LSAT... You also need to make sure that you seek the pattern that the LSAC uses in writing these questions. The pattern that underlies say for example "necessary assumptions" or "conditional logic" is repeated, and you want to put yourself into their shoes and try and see things from their perspective. It makes finding the correct answer, and spotting common incorrect answer forms, so much easier.

As far as answer choice (A) goes, I'm not saying that the Russians lack words for something that English can distinguish. I'm saying the English lack words for what the English can distinguish.

Changes things a bit! Keep your questions coming on this one if you have 'em. I'm sure that we'll get you to see the LSAT's perspective.

[ebrickm2]

The conclusion talks about languages that have less basic words than english, but then the right answer talks about english having less...confused!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

You are right to see that distinction, and the writers are certainly trying to throw you off the scent with the switch ...

However, note that author is not trying to make some absolute point about the English language having more or less words than any other language. The conclusion is about when the English language has more words for "colors" but we've also been presented with an example of when the English language has fewer words (as in the "uncle" situation). The conclusion is more specifically about the point that if a language has fewer basic words for colors, the speaker of that language will be less able to make distinctions within those colors.

The logical flaw is that the author is assuming that fewer words = less distinction. (A) addresses this flaw. It shows that having fewer basic words for "blue" doesn't mean one can't understand the color as distinctly.

[acechaowang]

The way how i do this is by process elimination. B is totally out, since it doesn't address comparison. C is totally out since we are not talking about color words for fruits. D is out, we are not talking about origin. E is out since it does not say anything about perception. A is the only possible one and it does weaken the conclusion in the way as the previous post said.

[rbkfrye]

Excellent discussion. I first agreed with magnumlifestyle, but upon rereading the question I don't think anyone's gotten it yet.

A) contradicts neither the conclusion about colors the prompt refers to (this conclusion only affects langauges with less words than english, which Russian here is not), nor the subconclusion about kinship before it (he is making absolute conclusions about differences between language speakers Mike.Kim, it's very specifically about kinship).

It does however "undermine" the subconclusion, and through it the "colors" conclusion, by undermining the unspoken assumed premise of the subconclusion that "less words > less discrimination between perceptions".

[WaltGrace1983]

No one has done a full breakdown yet so I'll break this down.

The passage starts with an example. It shows that in other non-English languages there are two different words for what English speakers refer to as the same thing.

Let's say there is language X and English. X has two words for what an English-speaking person would say is an "uncle." X has a word for "mother's brother" and "father's brother." X also has a more distinct kinship system. So all this is trying to say is that (more words → more distinguishing), at least in terms of this specific example.

However, the argument applies this example (and the causal connection it draws between more words and more distinction) to a different context...

Fewer words for colors
→
Fewer distinction between colors

The problem with this argument is that it is assuming that languages have words for everything that is perceptible. We should attack this argument by showing that there ARE languages that have fewer words for a color but CAN distinguish just as many/more colors.

(A) This shows that English-speakers have one word for two things they can distinguish: "blue." "Blue" refers to lighter shades and darker shades yet, even though we can distinguish a light blue from a dark blue, we still call each of these types of blue, "blue." Meanwhile, Russian has two different words. This weakens the argument because it shows how (Fewer words for colors) does not HAVE TO lead to (Fewer distinction between colors). In words, it gives the same cause with a different effect.

(B) But does every language have the same amount of words for red and other colors? (B) gives us the perception part, but we also need the number of words part.

(C) This is just showing how languages use their words. I don't really understand how this impacts the conclusion.

(D) We don't care about the origins of words! We need perception and number of words!

(E) This was so close! I think it would be right if it said, "Most languages do not have a basic word that distinguishes gray from other colors, although such speakers of such languages can distinguish gray from other colors." This would show how, even though the languages have less words, they still can distinguish!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey WaltGrace 1983, great work! You've nailed the argument in the stimulus and knew exactly how to hit the questions, perfect.

What do you think about the following issues for answer choices (C) and (E).

(C) might tempt some folks because it looks like Khmer has many several words, but these people can't seem to distinguish between two things that for most of us would appear green (leaves & unripe bananas). We were looking for an answer choice that provided a language with fewer basic words that could distinguish, not a language with more words that can't distinguish.

(E) fails to hit on something I felt was very important: a relative comparison. The argument concluded that languages with fewer basic words for colors than English would indicate that the people were unable to perceive as many colors. Answer choice (E) however doesn't compare languages with more (or fewer) basic words for colors.

[stm_512]

This question is driving me to the point of insanity, especially reading all the responses that still havn't solved my confusion.

If the question asks what undermines the conclusion. The conclusion is clearly, "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish.

In order to undermine this conclusion, we should look for an answer choice that strictly satisfies the sufficient condition but invalidates the necessary assumption.

I just can't see how A) satisfies the sufficient condition. How can English speakers have fewer basic words for colors than English has? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I understand how A) make sense if you twist the conclusion of the stimulus, but the conclusion of the stimulus is very specific with its sufficient condition.

[WaltGrace1983]

This question is driving me to the point of insanity, especially reading all the responses that still havn't solved my confusion.

If the question asks what undermines the conclusion. The conclusion is clearly, "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish.

In order to undermine this conclusion, we should look for an answer choice that strictly satisfies the sufficient condition but invalidates the necessary assumption.

I just can't see how A) satisfies the sufficient condition. How can English speakers have fewer basic words for colors than English has? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I understand how A) make sense if you twist the conclusion of the stimulus, but the conclusion of the stimulus is very specific with its sufficient condition.

I am probably confused on what you are saying here so, if I am, I apologize. However, when we weaken the argument (or really do anything with assumption family questions) we want to show that there is a gap between the premise (which I guess you could call a "sufficient condition" but I necessarily would not) and the conclusion. In other words, you want to say, "Yes author, I see your point! However, your premises don't really lead to the conclusion because ________". When we weaken, we show why the premises, while true, don't necessarily lead to the conclusion because the author forgot to take something into account. It looks like you know this but I was just getting a little bit confused on what exactly you meant by the bolded so I thought I'd clarify for my own sake. Here is the conclusion:

"Speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish."

The underlined portion is the "who." We are talking about "speakers with fewer basic words for colors." What is the author say happens with them? Well, because they have fewer basic words for colors they cannot distinguish as many colors.

There is a big assumption here and when you see it you will smack yourself in the face! Think about this assumption before scrolling down.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Ok got it?

If not, well...who is to say that the number of words has anything to do with perception? I'll give you an example. I studied abroad in Italy. What we call "blue" is very different from what Italians call "blu." In Italy, "blu" is navy blue - very dark. In America, "blue" is lighter - like the sky. The "blue" that we know is called "celeste" in the Italian language. Thus, Italians have two different words for "blue:" these are "celeste" and "blu." Can they distinguish more shades of blue than we can? Absolutely not. They just call it different things. They have more words for the same stuff we distinguish. People would think you were mad if you corrected people on the use of "blue."

So (A) is saying that English speakers (thus people who use the English language) are able to distinguish between lighter and darker shades of a color they call "blue." See my example above. Yet, Russians have two different basic words for the same thing that English speakers can distinguish. See my example above.

Do you see it now? Let me know if not! I like this question.

[stm_512]

^^

Thanks for reinforcing the importance of understanding the gap between the premises and the conclusion, I have to be more conscious in this endeavor.

I see the argument core, but I really don't like how the conclusion is worded. If it reads, "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of languages that have more basic words", then it would be perfectly clear.

I was thrown off by the, "...than English has...as speakers of English can distinguish" part, which obscured my original understanding of the argument core.

[WaltGrace1983]

^^

Thanks for reinforcing the importance of understanding the gap between the premises and the conclusion, I have to be more conscious in this endeavor.

I see the argument core, but I really don't like how the conclusion is worded. If it reads, "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of languages that have more basic words", then it would be perfectly clear.

I was thrown off by the, "...than English has...as speakers of English can distinguish" part, which obscured my original understanding of the argument core.

It's definitely a conclusion that could have been worded a little bit more clearly. All you would need to do is break it down though:

"Speakers of languages with fewer basic words THAN ENGLISH"

Those speakers "must be able unable to distinguish as many colors..."

[episcopoandrew]

I was torn between A and E for this one. I chose E because I thought that since that answer choice begins with 'most' it is more likely than not the correct answer to a weaken question. I heard that most is often a right answer to a weaken question, whereas 'some' and 'many' do not usually weaken. Is this just one of those examples where that doesn't apply?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure, that's good advice for guiding our instincts and prioritizing our time thinking about more likely answers, but you can't pick an answer choice based on strength of language alone.

(B) would beat both (A) and (E), since "almost every" is a stronger term than "most".

A strong claim doesn't do anything to strengthen/weaken if it's irrelevant to what we're examining in the conclusion/argument.

The conclusion is about whether "speakers of languages with fewer color-words are perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of languages with more color-words."

(A) is giving us an example in which speakers of a fewer-color-word language are perceptually ABLE to distinguish as many colors as speakers of a more-color-word language.

(E) doesn't have anything in it about whether speakers of these languages are perceptually able/unable to discriminate gray.

[HelenH783]

Again another question where a solid understanding of conditional logic will really make the task at hand easier.

The conclusion is that if a society has fewer words, then they have less of an ability to distinguish.

Put into formal notation

~W --> ~D

Remember, to undermine a conditional statement you must first show that the sufficient condition is true, while at the same time showing that the necessary condition has not been met. To undermine this conclusion we would need an example of a society with fewer words but that has more of an ability to distinguish.

~W some D

Answer choice (A) says that some who can distinguish lack words

D some ~W (same thing presented in another order)

whereas answer choice (C) says some who have words lack the ability to distinguish

W some ~D

This fails to meet the sufficient condition of the conditional statement and so can't be said to undermine the conclusion.

(A) undermines the conclusion for the reasons above.
(B) only addresses the ability to distinguish but not about whether the society has various words to describe the objects.
(C) fails to undermine for the reasons above.
(D) address the various words, but doesn't tell us about varying abilities to distinguish colors.
(E) fails to address a varying degree in one's ability to distinguish colors, so could not be said to undermine the conditional relationship in the conclusion.


Some of the answers were for other readers and I went through them quickly. If you still need help seeing this, please let me know!

If you'd like a little extra practice with this concept check out the following examples of various question types all testing the same thing.

PT36, S3, Q19
PT44, S2, Q18
June 07, S3, Q25 (available at http://lsac.org/LSAT/lsat-prep-materials.asp)

I'm having trouble with this question because I see the conclusion differently than it's stated here-- the conclusion specifies that "speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish.

I knocked A out immediately because it is concerns a language with MORE basic words than English (Russian)-- my instinct was that we can't infer anything about the relationship between languages with FEWER basic words and English from this. Choosing this as the right answer would require ignoring the specific languages in the conclusion, which wouldn't fly in other LSAT questions.

With that in mind, I chose C. Khmer, as described here, has in some cases fewer but in some cases more basic words than English (that last part is where it goes wrong-- the answer choice doesn't explicitly tell us that Khmer has more colors for green, just that their basic word refers to something more specific than "green", meaning there would be other words for other green things, but that's too big of a leap.)

After lots of mulling this over, I can accept that A is the right answer on the grounds that it introduces the idea of ability to distinguish hues, which would undermine the conclusion. But I still think it commits a cardinal sin in reversing the relationship between the languages in the conclusion. I think A and C are both bad, almost-there answers, and think I would choose C again in test conditions.

Any thoughts on this? Further support for A, or further input on why C is wrong?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Weaken and Strengthen answers don't need to be bulletproof to be correct. They just have to add or subtract some level of plausibility.

If I claim that a class of 4th grade students could pull off a decent version of the musical "Cats", it strengthens that claim so say that "5th graders from a school in a nearby state were able to pull of a decent version of 'Phantom of the Opera'."

It doesn't PROVE anything. Maybe there are important differences between 4th and 5th graders, between this state and the nearby state, between Cats and Phantom.

But it adds some plausibility to the underlying idea:
kids in elementary school could pull of a decent version of a famous broadway musical

somewhat similar people did something similar to what the author is describing, hence what the author is describing sounds somewhat feasible.

The conclusion here is relying on the assumption that
# of words for colors = # of colors speakers can perceive

Anything that undermines that assumption will weaken this argument.

(A) shows a nice mismatch.
English speakers have 1 word for a the color blue, even though English speakers can perceive two different shades of blue.

(C) doesn't do anything to that. It tells us an object that Khmer speakers would call blue and an object that Khmer speakers would call green. But there's nothing in here relating to the # of words Khmer has for colors vs. the number of colors that Khmer speakers can perceptually distinguish.

Hope this helps.

[YufeiR103]

I also missed the question, but later I found that even the question is one of the trickiest questions I've met, its logic is not hard.

What the question stem seems to specify is "English", but English is actually not special, and could be replaces by any language, and what we need to find is a answer saying that the speakers of a language with few basic words doesn't necessarily distinguish less colors than speakers of a language with more basic words. THAT is exactly what A says: English don't have two basic words for blue, but it nonetheless can distinguish two blues as the Russian, who has more basic words.

Even though here the language with less basic words is English, it also challenge the reasoning of the statement, and can be used as a strong counterexample. SO what we need to do here is to replace English with "A language with more basic words for color".