Linguist: In English, the past is described as “behind” and the future

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

The difficulty with this argument is that, in my opinion, follows logically from the premises at first glance. Nothing seems to be wrong with the argument.
However, there are three elements in this argument:
1- Language one speaks (available in premise 1 & conclusion )
2- Body movements (available in premises 2 & 3 & conclusion)
3- Visualising time (new element, available only in conclusion)

Now we need to link 3 (the new element) back to the premises and this is the essence of Supporter Assumption
"Supporter Assumptions link together new or rogue elements in the stimulus or fill logical gaps in the argument" from Critical Reasoning Bible p.237

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



(D) How people move when discussing the future correlates to some extent with how they mentally visualize time.
Here "bodily movement" is linked to the new element found only in the conclusion "visualising time".
Also, applying negation technique "How people move ... does not correlate with how they visualise time". The argument falls apart as if it is mere coincedence. So, this statement works as a supporter for the conclusion that there is "correlation to some extent".
(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.
This may stregthen the argument but the argument as it stand does not need further strength (although we don't know the results of this examination). Incorrect

DmitryFarber but what e;se could affect those movements when they are talking about past and future? If they move in specific way every time when past is discussed then why wont we say that they are moving in that way because of the language itself?

Can someone please explain why B is wrong and D is right in terms of the methodology used to approach this question?

I was very confused between B and D as both felt like assumptions made by the author but chose B and got it wrong.

@GMATNinja can you help?

Check out the explanation given here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/linguist-in- ... l#p2326280

Let me know the specific doubt you have.

This silly example might help: imagine that most people visualize time as moving in a circle, and when those people talk about time, they move their heads in a circle. That would be consistent with the linguist's argument, even though it goes against choice (B).

Or maybe most people don't mentally visualize time as "running" at all, and when they talk about time, they don't move at all! Again, this goes against (B) but fits the argument.

(B) doesn't hurt the argument, but, unlike (D), it's not a necessary assumption.

So if option E were to be rephrased as "Research on the movements of at least some speakers of languages other than English and Aymara concluded that discussing the past and the future correlated to how they visualize time", would that make it better than D?

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB, MartyMurray GMATNinja the only reason I was not sure about D is that it only talks about discussing future and does not cover past (basically half the argument is considered?). Any thoughts on what to do in this case? Negation as well would then cover future only. Any feedback helps. Thank you

Engineer1

An important thing to understand about GMAT assumptions is that they need only be NECESSARY, not sufficient. In other words, we are looking for something that needs to be true for the argument to work, but not typically something that fixes the entire argument or covers all its major flaws. That's why the negation test works. If you take AWAY an assumption, the argument should fail. This can happen even when only a small part of the gap in the argument is addressed by the assumption.

For instance, consider this argument: "The patient has an infection that is treatable with antibiotics. Therefore we should prescribe a 3-month course of these new experimental antibiotics." You're probably wondering why 3 months, and why THESE antibiotics. Valid objections. But the argument also relies on the assumption "The infection should be treated." That hardly covers all the issues, but it's necessary. If the infection should NOT be treated, the whole argument falls apart. Similarly, if how we think about the future has nothing to do with mental visualization, then the author's argument doesn't make sense.

One assumption: (D) How people move when discussing the future correlates to some extent with how they mentally visualize time.
Another assumption: How people move when discussing the past correlates to some extent with how they mentally visualize time.
There could be many others. 

 
­This person's answer for exclusion of B makes most sense. That B is not specific to the people mentioned in the problem.

I see a lot of people negating "most" to "some" which i think is wrong, I believe such negation should go from "most do" to "most don't" which is not a necessary assumption.­

­The linguist's argument boils down to this:

• English speakers lean back when talking about the past and forward for the future.
• Aymara speakers do the opposite - they gesture forward for the past and back for the future.
• Therefore, the language you speak influences how you picture time in your head.

To connect the dots from body movements to mental concepts of time, the linguist needs to assume something like choice (D) - that how folks move when discussing the future/past relates to how they visualize time mentally.

(D) bridges the gap in the linguist's logic. Without that assumption, the argument falls apart.

Choice (C) talks about what English and Aymara speakers do when discussing the present. But the passage only mentions movements related to past/future talk. What speakers do for the present is irrelevant - it doesn't make or break the linguist's reasoning.

So in a nutshell, the key assumption is (D). It's the glue holding the argument together, linking physical movements to mental visualizations of time. The other choices, like (C), just don't matter as much for the logic to work.