English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both use the word

D)

Negating D will destroy the conclusion i.e ( when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due
neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing. )

option D. author is assuming that there is not a third language to which both of Eng and Mbar have been in contact. If there is any third language shared by both of Eng and Mbar then we can find a relation and conclusion does not told true.

Negating D destroys the Conclusion and hence is the Answer.

This is a Find Assumption question type.

Conclusion: neither borrowing nor relatedness caused similarity. We need to make sure that the conclusion (cause --> effect) stands. So, we need to establish that borrowing or relatedness did not happen. Option (D) does what we need. As mentioned in previous posts, negated (D) completely kills the argument, i.e. (D) says that relatedness did occur.

The structure of the reasoning is the stem provides 2 factors ("related language" & "word borrowing") that the argument says does not cause the similarity in words common between the 2 languages.

Although there is neither any apparent relationship between the 2 languages mentioned nor borrowing of words involved, the question stem frames it in such a way that we are only investigating the relations between these two factors in connection with the end outcome.

However, what if the 2 languages themselves borrowed the words from another language? Also, what IF the languages are related to each other in a way that they descended from the same 'parent' language?

The conclusion would fall apart, and we need to place a defending assumption to protect the conclusion. Therefore, we need to find an answer that says the two languages aren't 'related' in any extend in that they dont descend from the same parent language, nor do the two languages borrow the word 'dog' from the same third language.

Answer: D

English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both use the word “dog” for canines. These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word “dog” was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing.

Conclusion: Sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is not caused by language relatedness or borrowing.

Evidence:

1.E & M both used the word "dog"
2.E & M are unrelated
3.It was not until the word "dog" was first used E&A had never been in contact with each other.

1-2-3 => the language could not have been borrowed from each other
Generalization: Similar words -> not caused by relatedness or borrowing.

What is the missing link here? The generalization is a jump If it fails to consider all scenarios that could break it apart.

Logically, we have A and B. The author concluded that A and B are not related to each other. Is that so? Imagine two guys(A and B) meet at a soccer field, they've never met each other before. Does that mean they are unrelated? Usually, we would think yes; however, it is possible that they share a father and that father(let's call him C) hides them from seeing each other. So now they are both related to each other or A and B are related to C. We must prove that they don't have the same father in other to say "YES, they are unrelated".

Let's check out the answer choice.





The argument requires that which one of the following be assumed?

This does not change the fact that they still share the word "dog". So it is possible that they borrow that word from each other. (A) can't be assumed.

What other languages do does not help to prove the relationship between E and M — ultimately, the generalization. (B) is out.

If it is USUALLY so, then the generalization that SOMETIMES both language are not related in not true. (C) is out.

Now C is introduced as not a possible third party that connects A and B. Hang on to this.

[/quote]
So If two unrelated languages share a word, they must have NOT come in contact with one another at sometime. Negate this is the conclusion. (E) is out.

Only D is left. hence, (D) is our answer.

English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both use the word “dog” for canines. These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word “dog” was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing.

The argument requires that which one of the following be assumed?

(A) English and Mbarbaram share no words other than “dog.” - WRONG. Irrelevant. Not necessary too.

(B) Several languages besides English and Mbarbaram use “dog” as the word for canines. - WRONG. Unrelated and not in scope.

(C) Usually when two languages share a word, those languages are related to each other. - WRONG. May be true but this case seems an exception and we need to established how it is possible. It does not specify how.

(D) There is no third language from which both English and Mbarbaram borrowed the word “dog.” - CORRECT. If this is true then passage does not stand as it is.

(E) If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages must have come in contact with one another at some time. - WRONG. Straight goes against the passage.

Answer D.

@MartyMurray @KarishmaB @DmitryFarber how to eliminate option E ? I cannot apply ACT.

Hi, while I understand why E is incorrect, I don't understand how it weakens the conclusion. Since all we know from the Premise that speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word “dog” was first used in either language, which means sharing a word doesn't prove the relatedness nor borrowing of the word (Conclusion) even when the speakers come in contact at some time.

callingTardis whollyshiv

Actually, E doesn't weaken the argument--it simply doesn't matter. Notice that E is in the form of a conditional: IF shared word, THEN contact. However, we already know that both of these conditions are true. The languages share the word "dog," and they have come into contact (after the word was first used). For E to be of any use to us, it would have to address *when* they came in contact, or *why* they share a word. Actually, since we already know for a fact that they came into contact after the word was developed, we really just need to know why they share the word. D directly addresses the possibility that they share the word because it was borrowed from some other language.

By the way, callingTardis, what do you mean by "apply ACT"?

thanks DmitryFarber
ACT is Assumption Negation Technique where I negate the options and see if they weaken the conclusion.

Ah okay. I usually just call that the Negation Test. You can use it on conditional (if-then) statements. The negation will turn the THEN part into "not necessarily" or "may not." So if the answer says "If x, then y," the negation would read "If x, y may not happen" or "x can happen without y," or "if x, not necessarily y." So in this case, the negation of E would be "If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages MAY NOT have come in contact with one another at some time." This doesn't ruin the argument (we already know that the cultures weren't in contact long ago, but now are), so E is out.

Notice that like any extreme statement, a conditional becomes a bit vague when negated: "if x happens, y may not have happened." Similarly, if the answer is "X always works," the negation is "X doesn't always work." If the answer is "All companies do X," the negation is "some companies don't do X." These kinds of negations will only ruin the argument if it relies on an ABSOLUTE with no exceptions. For this reason, conditionals and other extremes are often trap answers on assumption questions. The assumption can only be a conditional if the argument truly relies on X->Y *always* being true with no exceptions.

that makes a lot of sense, thanks a lot!