We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.
(B) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
(C) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
(D) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
(E) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.
Thoughts on the prompt:
It says that language reveals how its speakers lived. Then a conclusion is drawn based on the presence of three words and the absence of a word for "sea."
Thoughts on the answer choices:
A: Fish can come from lakes and rivers. If you fail to consider this, you might think this choice weakens the argument. It's a trap!
B: This is noteworthy. This could mean speakers of Proto-Indo-European actually did live near a sea. Good answer choice.
C: This is irrelevant.
D: This is irrelevant.
E: This is irrelevant.
I would choose answer choice B.
Side note: Languages vary in the number of names they have for colors. The minimum number of terms for any known language is two (light and dark). But this doesn't mean that speakers of that language don't see colors the way English speakers do. There's a lot of interesting stuff about color-naming
Edit: Edited to add side note.
My GMAT debrief