Let us consider a hypothetical pair of communicants, utterer and inter

Let us consider a hypothetical pair of communicants, utterer and interpreter, from the operation point of view. We shall assume that our utterer has six hats: red, blue, yellow, black, gray, and white. If the rods and cones (the tiny end organs packed together on what corresponds to the sensitive films in the stereoscopic or double-lens camera) of the retinae of his eyes are not defective, he will be able to see that the six hats differ even though they are of the same shape and material. If we reduce the light so that he can barely see, the white and the yellow will seem to be the same. But as the light grows stronger he will be able to see that the red, blue, and yellow affect him differently from black, gray, and white. He now has sufficient experience (remember, this is all grossly oversimplified) to conceive of color and shade. But he can also distinguish the red hat from the blue and yellow hats, the yellow from the blue and red, and so forth.

He is thus ready for the concepts red, blue, and yellow if, for example, we provide him with a red feather, a blue feather, and a yellow feather. Indeed, he may have the human impulse to decorate the hat with the corresponding feather. And if the feathers seem to have more in common with the white hat than the color hats have in common with the white hat, he can see that his concept of shade will determine the difference between the two reds, the two blues, or the two yellows, and he will have need of the concepts of light and dark. And as we increase the number of shades, he will require relation concepts like those expressed in the suffixes –er and –est. By repeating the conventional symbols “hat” and “red” with the red hat, he conditions the sound of the words to the sight of the hat. If he sees that the relation of each feather to its hat is similar to the other two, he has need of a relation concept like the one expressed by the preposition “in,” and he is thus prepared to say to himself “light red feather in dark red hat.” Now in the dark he is not able to tell one hat or one feather from another, but in the middle of a moonless night he is able to think “red feather in red hat” simply by uttering the appropriate symbols to himself. And with his human impulse to try new combinations, he can even think, “yellow feather in blue hat” without ever having seen them thus combined.

1. By discussing the different effects of reduced and increased light, the author is

I. pointing to a limitation in the dependence on perception by sight.
II. preparing to discuss the concepts of light and dark.
III. laying the ground for the distinction between what can be seen and what can be thought.

A. III only
B. I and II only
C. I and III only
D. II and III only
E. I, II, and III

2. Of the following, the most plausible criticism that could be directed at the “hats” example is that it is

A. too difficult to follow.
B. irrelevant.
C. too hypothetical.
D. too dependent on the esoteric language.
E. unreasonable.

3. According to the passage, the acquisition of symbols allows us not only to communicate, but also to

A. argue logically.
B. imagine.
C. respond to unconditioned stimuli.
D. respond to conditioned stimuli.
E. decorate hats.

4. The passage is most relevant to which of the following areas of study?

A. aesthetics of logic
B. literature and history
C. sociology
D. linguistics and psychology
E. anthropology