In many languages other than English there is a word for mothers bro

I see a couple questions about this one, and since I love material that is related to language, I will jump in and offer my thoughts. (Disclaimer: I do not speak Russian, but I still got the right answer.) As I typically do with CR (and RC) questions, I took a peek at the question stem before I read through the passage. This helps me wrap my head around the information as I encounter it, rather than read the passage, read the question, and reread the passage, a more time-consuming process that only fuels any anxiety I might be feeling over the question.


Okay, so we need to weaken or undermine the conclusion. In such questions, I find it useful to determine exactly what that conclusion may be so that I can form a plan of attack. (By the way, it helps on graduate-level tests such as this one to understand the three common "under"s: undermine (weaken); undercut (weaken); underscore (strengthen).) What do we need to zero in on?



The first sentence provides a premise for the conclusion of the second sentence, that speakers of... languages [other than English in which there are separate words for "mother's brother" and "father's brother"] evidence a more finely discriminated kinship system than English speakers do. Interesting. I guess we are meant to interpret this kinship system as a linguistic kinship system, rather than as a reflection of actual familial attitudes, but I do not want to get too distracted. The second half of the passage perfectly parallels the first, starting with a second premise and building a conclusion from it, swapping out words for family ties for words for colors. The logic is similar: with English as a touchstone, speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors... must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors. To put a dent in the argument, we will need to find some information to suggest that the linguistic causal relationship of fewer words about a certain topic = less refined thinking or perceptual understanding about that topic is inaccurate.


Analysis: If English speakers use the same word, blue, for a spectrum of colors that they are able to distinguish between, then their thinking about the color blue is not lacking anything in the way of a perceptual understanding that the Russians with their two words may possess. Although English was held up as the seemingly less deficient language in the second conclusion, there is textual evidence from the first comparison that it is not on par with Russian when it comes to splitting linguistic hairs. Thus, this answer choice would weaken the conclusion. Green light.


Analysis: Although fascinating, this answer says nothing of a refinement in understanding of color based on a language-to-language comparison. We are not interested in almost every language, especially without a comparison between the number of words for the same color. Red light.


Analysis: This is a nice distraction, with a one-to-one comparison in each case: English blue equates to this Khmer word for most leaves, while English green equates to the same Khmer word to describe unripe bananas. However, we do not get any information on perceptual ability to distinguish colors. In other words, it takes a projection of English color names to suggest that speakers of Khmer can distinguish between two distinct colors, and that is a little backwards, right? This could fall perfectly in line with the logic of the argument, for all we know. Red light.


Analysis: Now we are getting into etymologies? What would that prove, in terms of perceptual ability? We have no word-count-to-word-count comparison between the two languages here, so this choice misses the mark. Red light.


Analysis: This is a little similar to (B) in its incorporation of a vague most languages. Notice, too, that there is a vital missing component: there is no distinction between any of these languages, the number of words they may or may not use to describe this color known as gray. The issue is not whether the color appears in nature and languages have a word for it, but whether the speakers of a language with fewer words for a color than another language has possess the ability to perceive what that more word-laden language outlines. Red light.

In all, the only answer that follows the linear logic of the passage is (A). I would be happy to discuss any further questions anybody has on this one. For now, I will sign off in my typical fashion and wish everyone happy studies.

- Andrew