The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language.

Question

The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language. A phrase such as she was like, "no way!" you know?—a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago—is commonly understood by most today to mean she was doubtful. No language can admit imprecise word usage on a large scale without a corresponding decrease in quality.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

(A) Linguists have shown that the use of imprecise language on a small scale does not generally impair understanding.

(B) Many colloquialisms that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time as the people who used those particular phrasings were assimilated into larger groups with different language patterns.

(C) Dissemination of a new word or phrase by the mass media is an important factor in whether or not the new word or phrase will become a colloquialism.

(D) Colloquialisms are more likely to be coined by the youth in a culture than by any other segment of the population.

(E) Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of colloquial usages woven into the formal dialect of a given people.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

Priyank1905 · Answer

Confused between B and E. Though i have chosen B. Would like to know about the others opinion on this .

pikachu9 · Answer

I chose E. what is the correct ans?

Bunuel · Answer

The OA will be automatically revealed on Friday 19th of September 2025 12:08:59 AM Pacific Time Zone

okHedwig · Answer

I chose option E, however I was confused between B & E because of the tricky wordings, can you please explain the options?

rcorreag · Answer

Hi, the way i seeit is that ans B says that the colloquialisms disappeared. But the conclusion is more related to how colloquialisms interact with quality of language (it affects it). So this really doesn't do much, at most we could say that it gives a a feel that the use will fade and thus the low quality is transitory (but still low quality). However, answer E does weaken the conclusion by saying that these words are used in a process of refinement for a greater quality language.

okHedwig

I chose option E, however I was confused between B & E because of the tricky wordings, can you please explain the options?

HRX273 · Answer

Can someone explain why not b ??

quiaitaque · Answer

Hi,

(B) Many colloquialisms that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time as the people who used those particular phrasings were assimilated into larger groups with different language patterns.

As per my knowledge, I feel this statement doesnt weaken the argument as it talks about hoe Collouialisms have disapperaede. Hence, this is irrlevant as we need to weaken the argument on such phrases affecting the quality of the particular language.

literaryzeitgeist · Answer

Let us start with breaking down the argument. The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language. A phrase such as she was like, "no way!" you know?—a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago—is commonly understood by most today to mean she was doubtful. No language can admit imprecise word usage on a large scale without a corresponding decrease in quality. Premise 1 - No language can admit imprecise word usage on a large scale without a corresponding decrease in quality. Premise 2 (complements premise 1) - A phrase such as she was like, "no way!" you know?—a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago—is commonly understood by most today to mean she was doubtful. Conclusion - The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language. Both premise 1 and 2 are reasons offered to together prove (inductively) that the proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language. We can rewrite this argument as: No language can admit imprecise word usage on a large scale without a corresponding decrease in quality. A phrase such as she was like, "no way!" you know?—a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago—is commonly understood by most today to mean she was doubtful. Therefore, the proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language. The argument is weak on multiple counts. First, it does not explain why admitting imprecise word usage leads to a corresponding decrease in quality. Second, just because something was meaningless ages ago does not imply it needs to continue remain meaningless. Third, it takes a couple of things for granted, including a decrease in quality leads to the degradation of a language and that imprecise word usage are at par with colloquialisms. How do we know these things? It is safe to say that the argument is uncogent. What we are seeking now is one reason that proves that the proliferation of colloquialism is not degrading the English language as we are to weaken the argument. Let us now go through the answer choices. (A) Linguists have shown that the use of imprecise language on a small scale does not generally impair understanding. - We are dealing with proliferation here. - ELIMINATE (B) Many colloquialisms that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time as the people who used those particular phrasings were assimilated into larger groups with different language patterns. - Okay. But that does not mean their proliferation does not degrade a language. - ELIMINATE (C) Dissemination of a new word or phrase by the mass media is an important factor in whether or not the new word or phrase will become a colloquialism. - So? How is that linked to what we are proving? - ELIMINATE (D) Colloquialisms are more likely to be coined by the youth in a culture than by any other segment of the population. - Irrelevant. - ELIMINATE (E) Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of colloquial usages woven into the formal dialect of a given people. - Bingo! This choice implies that the proliferation of colloquialism is not degrading the English language but any language of highest quality tends to evolve out of a collection of colloquial usages, and these usages get woven into the formal dialect of a given people. Get back to both the premises now. So, no, there is no degradation that happens as per this choice but evolution. - HOLD Any thoughts? Any disagreements with the explanations? Lemme know!

B Sudharsan Founder of the Literary Zeitgeist

Ishaan30 · Answer

The main argument made by the passage is as follows -
 No language can admit imprecise word usage on a large scale without a corresponding decrease in quality.

According to this argument, the variables that we can attack are -  "No Language" ,  "Imprecise word usage" ,  "Large scale"  and  "Without corresponding decrease in quality" . 
We have to weaken the argument by manipulating these variables so that the argument can't be perfectly stated in the sentence.

NO. 
Talking about the small scale here so will not be related to the argument that talks about the large scale impact.

NO.  
Whether the colloquialisms appeared or assimilated into groups is not the main element of the question. The argument is about quality of language and nowhere in the option is it written or implied that colloquialisms assimilating into large groups with different language patterns deteriorates the quality of language.

NO 
This option answers the question of how colloquialisms are born and does not state that these degrade the language or not.

NO .
Who coins colloquialisms is beyond what the argument wants to explore so it is irrelevant to our answer, as well.

BINGO! 
This option attacks two of our variables, mentioned above, directly. "No Language" and "Without corresponding decrease in quality". This option says that  languages  of  the highest quality  often evolve with colloquialisms. Therefore, casting doubt on the claim that language deteriorates in quality by saying that highest quality languages evolve through colloquialisms, thereby implying that the quality of language is not quite or too dependent on colloquialisms.

Do correct me if I'm wrong and I think there must be another reason, for why E is right, that I am missing so do let me reply if anyone knows.

Ishaan30 · Answer

How colloquialisms appeared and assimilated have no implication to the change in quality of the language, as per this option. The option says it neutrally and hence, cannot weaken the argument. Now this option says that high quality languages often evolve through the colloquialisms and further implies that colloquialisms have little to no effect on the quality of the language. This option is not neutral. This option outright implies that colloquialisms occur and are still parts of high quality languages. Weakens the argument. Hope this helps.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Okay, it's, like, um, time for the second question on this passage about degraded English, you know? We're asked to weaken the same argument. To recap: The author concludes that the proliferation of colloquialisms degrades English. He then gives an example of a colloquialism and asserts as evidence that lots of imprecise word usage decreases the quality of a language. The right answer probably won't involve denying the argument's assumption, since the first question for this stimulus already focused on that element. Therefore, we can go through the choices one by one looking for a choice that will decrease the viability of the conclusion.

(A) discusses imprecise language "on a small scale" while the stimulus focuses on such language "on a large scale." Therefore, (A) is outside of the argument's scope.

(B) Since the author's argument relates colloquialisms to the quality of a language, information about their historical longevity does not impact the argument one way or the other. The real issue is the damage they do to the language while they're around.

(C) explains the media's role in determining the fate of a potential colloquialism. Since the argument itself does not concern itself with the media or with the mechanisms by which a colloquialism becomes a colloquialism, (C) has no effect on this argument.

(D) Like (C), (D) brings up the issue of the source of colloquialisms. The argument focuses on the effect of colloquialisms; their source plays no role in that focus.

(E) breaks apart the author's causal argument. The author asserts that colloquialisms lower the quality of a language, while (E) explains that they actually often contribute to the "highest quality" languages in the long run. (E) is the answer because it addresses a possibility which the author doesn't consider and which would weaken the author's argument.

An 800 test taker knows that the two most common ways to weaken an argument are by breaking down the argument's central assumption, and by asserting alternative possibilities relevant to the argument.

The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language.

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The proliferation of colloquialisms is degrading the English language.

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards