willaminic
Thanks Received: 1
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 31
Joined: May 26th, 2010
 
 
 

Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by willaminic Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:46 pm

Hi, i am wondering can anyone explain why A is wrong?

I am also wondering how to negate B, is it None of the people will engage in the international trade?

Thanks in advance for help. :D
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 4 times.
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by ohthatpatrick Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:31 pm

Hey, there.

(A) is wrong because negating it has no effect on the strength of the argument.

The author is claiming that in a world economy with a universal language, we'll still develop regional dialects in response to local populations' particular communicative needs.

If we negate (A), it would say "at least two local populations have the same communicative needs as each other".

Does that hurt the argument? No. Those local populations that have the same communicative needs will just speak the same dialect. The author's conclusion is still valid as long as many other local populations have different communicative needs.

(And, naturally, the correct answer (E) gets right to the essence of that idea. Negating (E) says "there WON'T be many different communicative needs" which implies that "there WON'T be many different dialects")

In general, on Necessary Assumption, it pays to be skeptical of any answer choice that sounds very extreme. Extreme assumptions are sometimes correct, if they match up with extreme language in the argument. But very often, these answers accuse the author of believing something much stronger or more specific than anything he actually claimed.

==
Your answer to your 2nd question, how do we negate (B), was half right.

When an answer has a quantity term in it, we have to negate the quantity term.

Otherwise, we negate the main verb.

Quick examples:
a) Flossing helps prevent gingivitis
negated) Flossing DOES NOT HELP prevent gingivitis

b) At least some of my friends are Libertarians.
negated) NONE of my friends are Libertarians.

If, for (b), I had instead negated the main verb, I would have gotten
"At least some of my friends ARE NOT Libertarians".
Does that contradict the original statement?
"At least some of my friends are Libertarians"

No. Since those don't contradict, one is not the negation of the other. And that's why when a claim has a quantity expression in it, the only way to contradict the claim is to negate the quantity expression.

QUANTITY ................... NEGATED QUANTITY
some, sometimes ........ none, never, no
most ........................... few, less than half
all, always ................... not all, not always

We can go in either direction here. If you started with a quantity from the right column, its negation would be the corresponding term in the left column.

So choice (B) on Q14 said "at least some will not engage in international trade".

Negated: "No one will not engage in international trade".

Since that's a double-negative, we should clean it up for our brains by rephrasing that as "Everyone will engage in international trade".

FYI, we should EITHER negate the quantity term or negate the main verb. We never do both.

Your version of how to negate (B) was
"No one will engage in international trade"

You had changed the quantity of "at least some" into "No one" and also changed the main verb from "will not engage" to "will engage". So just watch out for that.

Hope this helps. Let me know if it elicits further questions.
 
nflamel69
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 162
Joined: February 07th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by nflamel69 Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:03 pm

Patrick, there's a part of your explanation that I'm confused here. You said after negation of A, that those who have the same communicative needs will just speak the same language. But can we really infer this? All we know is that different needs caused different dialect, so if we negate the cause, can we validly deduce the opposite of the effect? I thought this is like a flaw that I've seen somewhere before. Please let me know if my interpretation is wrong.
 
zana.nanic
Thanks Received: 3
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: September 16th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by zana.nanic Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:34 pm

Can someone please elaborate on C?
I know that it is wrong and I didn't not select that, but on a second look it seems a good assumption.

The argument says " When the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language" and answer choice c makes this connection explicit---Is it a conclusion redundancy?Or does it imply the conclusion of the unification process while the argument doesn't actually state that?

Please, help!
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 887
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by timmydoeslsat Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:39 pm

(C) creates a necessary condition for a universal language in business to occur, and we do not need that whatsoever.

It does not restate anything in our argument.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by ohthatpatrick Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:26 pm

A couple quick responses to previous points:

Yes, I was being lax with the logic in how I responded to (A) ... people having the same communicative needs doesn't necessarily mean they would speak the same dialect.

I was going for the conversational sense of what effect that has on the argument, but the previous poster is correct in saying we wouldn't logically infer that.

In terms of (C), "unless" is precisely the type of extreme word I was warning about in my discussion of extreme language.

One might wonder whether "forces" in the conclusion is a strong enough match for "unless". It could be, but in this case the logical order would be reversed.

The conclusion was saying "when the unification forces universal language", which would be diagrammed
unification --> universal language

(C) would be diagrammed
~unification --> ~universal language

So it's an illegal negation of that idea.

But more to the point, you should see the conclusion as everything following the word "so" ... In this case, the conclusion is a conditional statement. "When X occurs, Y will happen."

Anytime on this test that you're job is to argue with a conditional statement, you must argue with it by accepting the sufficient (left side) idea, while disputing the necessary (right side) idea.

My job in arguing with Q14 is not to make a case that "the world economy WON'T unify or that their WON'T be a universal language as a result". My job is to argue that "the universal language WON'T necessarily develop many regional dialects".

So I would not be attracted to (C) because I can see it's only dealing with the first half of the conditional conclusion.

Hope this helps.
 
doug.feng
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 18
Joined: May 24th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by doug.feng Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:49 pm

I'm just posting my explanation as a form of learning as I go, as well as to maybe organize the information and possibly help others in the future.

Premise:
Regional dialects, many of which eventually become distinct languages, are responses by local pop. to their own particular communicative needs.

Conclusion:
This universal language will develop many regional dialects, despite the unification of the world economy causing this language to be created.

Assumption:
The universal language will develop many regional dialects to cater to their particular local communicative needs.

(A): Negation does not destroy the argument.
(B): Out of Scope. Whether or not people are engaging in trade after the unification of world economy does not matter.
(C): Out of Scope. We don't care if a universal language will or will not arise. If anything, this could be more background information.
(D): Out of Scope. Whether or not these dialects are eradicated does not matter. (In fact, could even hurt the argument).
(E): Correct Answer. Basically re-states the assumption founded above.
 
DavidH327
Thanks Received: 1
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 24
Joined: December 17th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by DavidH327 Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:07 pm

In choosing negation between Quantity vs Main Verb, which is one is more appropriate?
If the main verb is negated in B, it would be that "some people WILL ENGAGE in international trade"
Where as if quantity is negated, it would be "ALL will ENGAGE in international trade" as you mentioned.
It seems the former is included in the latter but not the vice versa.
So is negating quantity is always better when quantity is present with a main verb???

Also, when negating UNLESS statement in C
Would it be UNLESS the world economy is unified, universal language for use in international trade WILL arise?
OR universal language for use in international trade WILL NOT arise ONLY IF the world economy is unified?

ohthatpatrick Wrote:Hey, there.

(A) is wrong because negating it has no effect on the strength of the argument.

The author is claiming that in a world economy with a universal language, we'll still develop regional dialects in response to local populations' particular communicative needs.

If we negate (A), it would say "at least two local populations have the same communicative needs as each other".

Does that hurt the argument? No. Those local populations that have the same communicative needs will just speak the same dialect. The author's conclusion is still valid as long as many other local populations have different communicative needs.

(And, naturally, the correct answer (E) gets right to the essence of that idea. Negating (E) says "there WON'T be many different communicative needs" which implies that "there WON'T be many different dialects")

In general, on Necessary Assumption, it pays to be skeptical of any answer choice that sounds very extreme. Extreme assumptions are sometimes correct, if they match up with extreme language in the argument. But very often, these answers accuse the author of believing something much stronger or more specific than anything he actually claimed.

==
Your answer to your 2nd question, how do we negate (B), was half right.

When an answer has a quantity term in it, we have to negate the quantity term.

Otherwise, we negate the main verb.

Quick examples:
a) Flossing helps prevent gingivitis
negated) Flossing DOES NOT HELP prevent gingivitis

b) At least some of my friends are Libertarians.
negated) NONE of my friends are Libertarians.

If, for (b), I had instead negated the main verb, I would have gotten
"At least some of my friends ARE NOT Libertarians".
Does that contradict the original statement?
"At least some of my friends are Libertarians"

No. Since those don't contradict, one is not the negation of the other. And that's why when a claim has a quantity expression in it, the only way to contradict the claim is to negate the quantity expression.

QUANTITY ................... NEGATED QUANTITY
some, sometimes ........ none, never, no
most ........................... few, less than half
all, always ................... not all, not always

We can go in either direction here. If you started with a quantity from the right column, its negation would be the corresponding term in the left column.

So choice (B) on Q14 said "at least some will not engage in international trade".

Negated: "No one will not engage in international trade".

Since that's a double-negative, we should clean it up for our brains by rephrasing that as "Everyone will engage in international trade".

FYI, we should EITHER negate the quantity term or negate the main verb. We never do both.

Your version of how to negate (B) was
"No one will engage in international trade"

You had changed the quantity of "at least some" into "No one" and also changed the main verb from "will not engage" to "will engage". So just watch out for that.

Hope this helps. Let me know if it elicits further questions.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q14 - Linguist: Regional dialects, many

by ohthatpatrick Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:22 pm

Negating a claim just means "saying the minimum that would need to be true to contradict it".

(B) is saying that "in at least one region of the world, at least one person will not engage in international trade".

If you wanted to contradict that, what would you need to say?

"In NO region of the world will at least one person not engage in international trade." That's a double negative, so we're really saying is, "In ALL regions of the world, everyone will engage in international trade".

As soon as someone / somewhere does NOT engage in international trade, then (B) is a true statement. So negating it gets us a very strong universal idea.




RULES OF NEGATION
1. If the first word or truth value hinges on a quantity word, negate the quantity word.
given: “sloppy prose appears in some amateur novels” -> negation: “sloppy prose appears in zero amateur novels”

2. If the claim is ruling out the possibility of something, negate the ruling out word (usually ‘not’)
given: “dressing as Santa will not ruin Christmas” -> negation: “dressing as Santa will ruin Christmas”

3. If the claim’s truth value hinges on the main verb, negate that verb.
given: “Reading newspapers helps to increase your vocabulary” -> negation: “Reading newspapers does not help to increase your vocab”

4. If the claim is conditional, we probably shouldn’t negate it. Just ask yourself whether it matches the flow of the author’s reasoning (and watch out for illegal reversals or negations). If you do want to negate it, you’re saying “it’s possible there’s a counterexample”.
given: “Getting into Harvard requires an LSAT score above 160” -> negation “It’s possible someone got into Harvard with a sub-160 score”



So as to your question about (C), I wouldn't recommend negating it. Just ask yourself if it matches the core.

Is this the core?
(C) If the world economy is not unified, a universal language will not
arise.

No, he's thinking that "when the world economy IS unified, a universal language WILL arise". Although that's not even part of his argument core.

So (C) is both an illegal negation of something the author is thinking and also not instrumental to the core.

PREM: local populations with particular communicative needs lead to regional dialects.

CONC: so when we invent a universal language for international trade, it will lead to regional dialects.


If you were negating (C) (or any conditional), you'll be contradicting it by saying "it's possible there's at least one counterexample".

negating (C) sounds like
"It's possible that the world economy is not unified, but a universal language for trade DOES arise".