muralis18
I wanted to know the reason behind option D to be correct.
Isn't it already stated in the passage that when the language barrier is damaged by stroke, linguistic capabilities are impaired -> "
When a language center of the brain is damaged, for example by a stroke, linguistic capabilities are impaired in some way"
So stroke damages the language barrier to causes impairment.
And option D just restates the same -> stroke damages at least one of the language barriers.
Experts' opinions on this would be helpful, to fill any logic gaps that I'm missing.
Best.
Let's look again at the two statements you quoted above.
Here's what the passage says:
When a language center of the brain is damaged, for example by a stroke, linguistic capabilities are impaired in some way.So, IF damage to language center, THEN linguistic capabilities are impaired.
Here's what choice (D) says:
(D) If there are language centers on the left side of the brain, any serious stroke affecting that side of the brain damages at least one of them.So, IF language centers, THEN stroke damages them.
We can see that the two statements are actually quite different.
Now, let's consider the conclusion of the argument:
people who have suffered a serious stroke on the left side of the brain without suffering any such impairment must have their language centers in the right half.So, IF stroke on left side + no impairment, THEN language centers on right side.
Notice that the author is assuming that stroke on left side = damage to language centers on the left side, which is basically what (D) says.