Hi EatMyDosa, I am not an expert but here are my two cents, E would still not be the required assumption. Assumption is something that we need to arrive at conclusion. Author can still conclude "the language one speaks affects how one mentally visualizes time." even without examining the movements in other languages apart from English and Aymara.

Option E even in your new conclusion is neutral, now if researcher in option E would have agreed with what author concluded for other languages as well , then it would have played the role of a strengthner but again not assumption.

Assumption is what comes before the argument i.e. needed for conclusion to hold
Strengthner is what comes after the argument i.e. providing the support for argument to hold

I hope this helps.

Hi GMATNinja should I worry that I dont know the difference between sufficient and necessary assumptions?

Yes, you should know what an assumption is in GMAT context (necessary assumption) and what is meant by sufficient assumption.
Check this question:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to ... 38537.html
_________________

If you were to say "the bodily movements", which definite bodily movements would you be talking about? It would be the bodily movements discussed in the argument.
Then, the case would be no different from "these bodily movements".

The conclusion is "the language one speaks affects how one mentally visualizes time". It is based on the bodily movements observed during research.

Option (E) will not be an assumption in either case. Research is often done on a small sample and not the whole population.
One can weaken the conclusion of the research by pointing out that the sample had selection bias and did not represent the population properly but it is certainly not an assumption.
_________________

We have to definitely kepp in mind that we have to include both Arymara and the English speaking people and how theyre actions are corelated resulting in the forward and backward mental visulazisation of the time space they are seeking to establish let us jump into the elemination of the options
A- this is absolutely true however it fails to take into the account how the English people are fitting into the frame and their corelation with time visualisation
B-This is also a stated premise however it doesn't address any relation between Arymara and English speaking and the corelation
C - we have no idea as of what other people we are only given a definite sample to be working on
D- Clearly this covers all the requiite ground required and provides clear cut picture what interelationship between Arymians and English people - this has to be the answer
E-We have no idea about other definitive sampling space HENCE IMO D

Linguist: In English, the past is described as “behind” and the future “ahead,” whereas in Aymara the past is “ahead” and the future “behind.” Research indicates that English speakers sway backward when discussing the past and forward when discussing the future. Conversely, Aymara speakers gesture forward with their hands when discussing the past and backward when discussing the future. These bodily movements, therefore, suggest that the language one speaks affects how one mentally visualizes time.

P : English : past (behind) future (ahead) vs Aymara past (ahead) future (behind)
P : English speakers sway the according direction while Aymara speakers gestured to the according direction
C : language affects how one mentally visualizes times

The linguist's reasoning depends on assuming which of the following?

(A) At least some Aymara speakers sway forward when discussing the past and backward when discussing the future.
-> Seeing and gesturing in this argument can be categorized as bodily movements. Thus option A is same as the premise given in the argument.

(B) Most people mentally visualize time as running either forward or backward.
-> The conclusion is limited to how people mentally visualize time not to how people visualize time as running.

(C) Not all English and Aymara speakers tend to sway or gesture forward or backward when discussing the present.
-> "All" is not necessarily needed for the conclusion to be valid. Moreover, present is not relevant to the argument.

(D) How people move when discussing the future correlates to some extent with how they mentally visualize time.
-> Correct. The term "move" can also be categorized as one of bodily movements. Thus, option D is giving linkage between bodily movements and mental visualisation. If we negate option D, we get "~ does not correlate with how ~" and this negated sentence breaks down the conclusion.
+a Gmat ninja's explanation

Choice (D) connects these dots explicitly:

English speakers sway backward when discussing the past and forward when discussing the future.
Aymara speakers gesture forward with their hands when discussing the past and backwards when discussing the future.
How people move when discussing the future correlates to some extent with how they mentally visualize time.
Therefore, these bodily movements suggest that the language one speaks affects how one mentally visualizes time.


(E) The researchers also examined the movements of at least some speakers of languages other than English and Aymara discussing the past and the future.
-> Not necessary. If true, option E can support the conclusion but is not necessary assumption for the conclusion to hold.

Hi,
Can you check the same logic (Negating the option and then checking if it is wrecking the conclusion)
for Option A: According to me
Negation for Option A is "No Aymara speakers sway forward when discussing the past and backward when discussing the future"
Now this statement is totally wrecking the conclusion: "These bodily movements, therefore, suggest that the language one speaks affects how one mentally visualizes time"

dear DmitryFarber, MartyTargetTestPrep,GMATNinja,VeritasKarishma, GMATRockstar
AndrewN,

I did not realize the jump from movements to visualize time, because I thought of swag backwards and forwards as movements, and past and future as mentally visualize time.
when we talk future and past, don't we mentally visualize time ? for me, they are the same,

would you please clarify? I think I have missed something but I have no idea

thanks in advance.

You're right that swaying/gesturing backward and forward are examples of "movements."

However, the past and future themselves aren't the same thing as mentally visualizing time. The past and the future are just points on some sort of timeline.

What's key to the linguist's argument is how we see that timeline in our mind's eye -- do you see the past as in front of you, or behind you? The linguist argues that this depends on what language you speak. To reach this conclusion, he/she makes some observations regarding how you move while discussing the past and the future.

So, the linguist assumes that these movements give us some insight into how people actually see the timeline in their mind's eye. (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

ThatDudeKnows it realy is not clear what this argument is doing and where is the gap. honesty the passage looks complete to me as it is. Naturally language will show how ppl mentally visualise time via body movements if certain languages lead to specific body movements. MartyTargetTestPrep ChiranjeevSingh KarishmaB

The argument tells us about two examples whereby language seems to influence movement.

And then the conclusion says that body movements suggest language affects how one visualizes time. Where did the "visualize" part come from? The examples only talk about movement, not visualization. And then all of a sudden we have language --> visualization --> movement.
_________________

But they would only be moving with visuaisation. It is an aspect we do not even need to care about tbh. Hw does it matter what they do to move? ALso how are they moving without visualising? In which case would they be moving front or back without visualisation of time ? ThatDudeKnows

Do you VISUALIZE chewing before you chew? Or do you just chew? Yes, it is an action controlled by your brain, but just because an action is controlled by your brain does not mean that you VISUALIZE it.

This question is a VERY common setup by GMAC. They make an argument that p --> q and then they introduce some term r that is similar to or associated with either p or q but isn't the SAME. And then they insert r into the p --> q relationship without making it clear that it belongs there. Just learn to spot that and you'll get more questions right.

Far more important than this specific case is how you choose to evaluate questions that you get wrong. This is a question written by GMAC. Those are the people who write the real test. It doesn't matter whether you have a good case for why they way they do things is wrong, THEY write the real test. So THEY make the rules. You might disagree with the rules, but rather than arguing why your answer is right or why the right answer is wrong, you'll be better off if you evaluate your wrong answers to see if you can figure out how GMAC works and what you can do differently next time.
_________________