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

Hello again, Farina. Since I wrote a lengthy response on the same passage recently, one that had a different question and answer set, I would be happy to help clarify matters here. I have already written a breakdown on the passage in that other post, so we will start here with the question:

This is a basic assumption question, so we need to know what must be taken for granted in order for the conclusion to follow. To make this determination, we once again have to turn to the passage and examine that conclusion:

The conclusion of the argument follows therefore in the last line, and again, there is a relationship outlined between the number of basic words for colors and the perceptual ability to distinguish as many colors as the speaker of a language that uses more color words. What would necessarily be assumed for the argument to operate? Let us take a look at the answer choices.

Analysis: Great, but do we have to assume this information for the argument to hold? What do the words brother and sister have to do with colors, anyway? Remember, the question explicitly mentions the conclusion concerning words for colors. This answer choice steps out of bounds, not to mention that it makes no difference whether most, a few, or even all languages separate such relation words. Red light.

Analysis: Although this answer choice does not touch on colors per se, it does mention each sensory quality, to which a sense of sight would belong. Notice, too, that the answer mentions the ability to perceptually distinguish using the senses, a necessary component for the conclusion to be drawn. You could also read this answer as saying that different languages do not use the same word to describe, say, the color red, or that regardless of language, to use the same example as before, red would not refer to both a color and a sound. (Sorry, synesthetes.) In any case, if the phrasing of the answer threw you off in your first run, then just mark this one as a maybe and move on. The clock is going to keep ticking, and sometimes it is better to know what is not the answer than to make an on-the-spot determination as to what a certain answer choice may mean. Yellow light.

Analysis: Now we are getting into absolutes with no other language, and the issue is not whether each language is unique. Remember, the argument is based on a comparison between the color words of one language and the color words of another, as well as on how those color words tie into the ability to perceive differences in colors. We cannot assume that every language is unique in the manner outlined in this answer choice, nor do we need to do so in order for the argument to operate. Red light.

Analysis: This can be an appealing option, since it does mention language and the ability of speakers to distinguish perceptually. The big problem, in my mind, lies with short, frequently used words. The passage says basic words, which does not have to mean shorter or more frequently used words. Under scrutiny, the specificity of this answer choice works against it. Red light.

Analysis: We can make no such assumption about where people live. Exposure to a certain variety of flora and fauna (or lack thereof) might understandably relate to a larger or smaller number of words pertaining to those plants and animals, but how does that relate to perceptual ability to distinguish certain colors? That conclusion is one step removed, and if you have to supply the bridge for your own logical argument to hold, then you are probably going out on a limb, a bad approach for CR. Red light.

With four deficient answers and one maybe, an answer that proves harder to argue against than the others, the best option to choose is (B). If you apply the popular negation technique for assumption questions, you get the following:

(B) Each language does not have a different basic word for each sensory quality that its speakers can perceptually distinguish.

If that were true, then the argument about word counts and perceptual ability would not hold, so this is our assumption.

Still have questions? Feel free to ask. Happy studies.

- Andrew