Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
02 Mar 2020, 02:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
57% (02:27) correct
43%
(02:37)
wrong
based on 639
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In many languages other than English there is a word for “mother’s brother” which is different from the word for “father’s brother,” whereas English uses the word “uncle” for both. Thus, speakers of these languages evidence a more finely discriminated kinship system than English speakers do. The number of basic words for colors also varies widely from language to language. Therefore, speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish.
Which one of the following, if true, undermines the conclusion concerning words for colors?
(A) Speakers of English are able to distinguish between lighter and darker shades of the color they call “blue” for which Russian has two different basic words.
(B) Almost every language distinguishes red from the other colors.
(C) Khmer uses a basic word corresponding to English “blue” for most leaves, but uses its basic word corresponding to English “green” for unripe bananas.
(D) The word “orange” in English has the same origin as the equivalent word in Spanish.
(E) Most languages do not have a basic word that distinguishes gray from other colors, although gray is commonly found in nature.
Which one of the following, if true, undermines the conclusion concerning words for colors?
(A) Speakers of English are able to distinguish between lighter and darker shades of the color they call “blue” for which Russian has two different basic words.
(B) Almost every language distinguishes red from the other colors.
(C) Khmer uses a basic word corresponding to English “blue” for most leaves, but uses its basic word corresponding to English “green” for unripe bananas.
(D) The word “orange” in English has the same origin as the equivalent word in Spanish.
(E) Most languages do not have a basic word that distinguishes gray from other colors, although gray is commonly found in nature.
04 Mar 2020, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
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
Bunuel
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?
Bunuel
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.
Bunuel
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.
Bunuel
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.
Bunuel
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.
Bunuel
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.
Bunuel
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
General Discussion
02 Mar 2020, 11:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think Ans is B, The conclusion is speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish. To weaken this conclusion, we need to show that speakers of other languages can distinguish among various colors. B says speakers can distinguish among Red and other colors so this means they are not unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English..
I think ans is B.
I think ans is B.
