Q21 - English and the Austronesian language

[ban2110]

I noticed there wasn't a post for this question and since I need practice with NA questions I thought I might one up. That being said, I would greatly appreciate it if others (especially instructors) chimed in to straighten out the hiccups in my reasoning!

From the question stem, I know this is a necessary assumption so I'm primarily on the lookout for either a "shielding" or "bridging" answer choice.

Premises
Two unrelated languages both have the same word ("dog") for canines.
+
Neither language could have borrowed it from either because both languages were already using the word long before they came into contact with each other

Conclusion
When languages share words, the similarity is due to neither language-relatedness nor borrowing.

The conclusion raised some flags for me because it assumes that just because the 2 languages only came into contact after the word was already in use by both that neither language could have borrowed it at all. This struck me as a huge gap because both languages could've been in contact with another country that also uses the same word. With that in mind, I realized that there was a good chance I would need an answer choice to "shield" this gap.

(A) Out of scope. This isn't something the argument needs in order for the conclusion to follow-through

(B) This one was very tempting. It was along the lines of the type of answer I was looking out for so I initially kept it. I eventually decided against it because I found a better answer but also because unlike the correct AC, this AC doesn't say that any of those languages came into contact, which I thought was key for closing the gap.

(C) Out of Scope. This doesn't do anything for the argument.

(D) This is exactly what I was looking for. This AC eliminates the possibility that both languages borrowed the word from a third party. Also, negating this AC would weaken the stimulus.

(E) I'm not sure how to classify this AC. It doesn't seem out of scope to me. It just seems like a premise booster; the stimulus already states that the 2 languages are unrelated and came into contact so this just seems like a reaffirmation of that.

Thank you for all the help!

[ohthatpatrick]

95% of that was GREAT!

I just want to follow up on (B) and (E), to make you a little more decisive about why those are wrong.

(B) is going the OPPOSITE direction of (D). You were liking (B) because it was getting at the secret objection you thought of - "What if both English and Austronesian got 'dog' from some other language?"

But remember, the author is trying to argue that those two languages did NOT get it from somewhere else. The author is trying instead to say that the two languages independently invented the same word.

So (B) would be drifting in the direction of saying, "Hey, author, there are a bunch of languages out there that use 'dog', so maybe English and Austronesian both borrowed 'dog' from one of those other languages." This would be the OPPOSITE of what the author wants to hear.

(D) is SHUTTING DOWN the idea that both languages got 'dog' from somewhere else. (B) is OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITY that both languages got 'dog' from somewhere else.

Similarly, with (E), you were right that it's not out of scope. Again, it goes opposite of what the author is trying to convey.

Let's look at the conditional. Does the trigger apply?

Do we have two unrelated languages that share a word?
Yes, English and Austronesian.

Does the author conclude that "English and Austronesian speakers MUST have come in contact with one another"?

No! Although the author admits the two languages eventually came into contact with one another, the goal of the argument is to show that when "dog" was first being used by both languages, the speakers HAD NOT come into contact with each other yet.

So this contradicts information the author presents. These unrelated languages shared a word, but had NOT come into contact with each other at the time.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work!

[ban2110]

95% of that was GREAT!

I just want to follow up on (B) and (E), to make you a little more decisive about why those are wrong.

(B) is going the OPPOSITE direction of (D). You were liking (B) because it was getting at the secret objection you thought of - "What if both English and Austronesian got 'dog' from some other language?"

But remember, the author is trying to argue that those two languages did NOT get it from somewhere else. The author is trying instead to say that the two languages independently invented the same word.

So (B) would be drifting in the direction of saying, "Hey, author, there are a bunch of languages out there that use 'dog', so maybe English and Austronesian both borrowed 'dog' from one of those other languages." This would be the OPPOSITE of what the author wants to hear.

(D) is SHUTTING DOWN the idea that both languages got 'dog' from somewhere else. (B) is OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITY that both languages got 'dog' from somewhere else.

Similarly, with (E), you were right that it's not out of scope. Again, it goes opposite of what the author is trying to convey.

Let's look at the conditional. Does the trigger apply?

Do we have two unrelated languages that share a word?
Yes, English and Austronesian.

Does the author conclude that "English and Austronesian speakers MUST have come in contact with one another"?

No! Although the author admits the two languages eventually came into contact with one another, the goal of the argument is to show that when "dog" was first being used by both languages, the speakers HAD NOT come into contact with each other yet.

So this contradicts information the author presents. These unrelated languages shared a word, but had NOT come into contact with each other at the time.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work!

Thank you so much for the detailed analysis! The part about (B) and (D) being opposites was especially helpful!

[WaltGrace1983]

Thank you so much for the detailed analysis! The part about (B) and (D) being opposites was especially helpful!

I would say that (B) is a very cookie-cutter weaken answer choice.

I'd like to add a little bit to the reasoning of (A) and (C) too! (A) is out of scope because we are only focused on the word "dog" here. It could be that English and Mbarbaram share every other word - maybe they are basically the same language! However, we are only talking about "dog" to prove one point. (C) is wrong because what "usually" happens is not related to what happened - or at least what the author claims to have happened - here. Whenever we see "usually" in an answer choice for a NA and the stimulus doesn't provide any premise or conclusion related to it, that should make you very apprehensive. However, "usually" can be a great word to come across in a strengthener/weakener question.

I add this because I am personally always trying to get out of the "out of scope" mindset and figure out why things are out of scope. I think this is especially important in assumption questions because, let's face it, sometimes the correct answer choice is just absolutely crazy!

"The train left on time, therefore the train arrived on time" could have a correct NA answer as "there is at least one moving object in the universe that aliens didn't attack to make that moving object late to a certain appointment."