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

Question

In many languages other than English there is a word for “mother’s brother” which is different from the word for “father’s brother,” whereas English uses the word “uncle” for both. Thus, speakers of these languages evidence a more finely discriminated kinship system than English speakers do. The number of basic words for colors also varies widely from language to language. Therefore, speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish.

Which one of the following, if true, undermines the conclusion concerning words for colors?

(A) Speakers of English are able to distinguish between lighter and darker shades of the color they call “blue” for which Russian has two different basic words.

(B) Almost every language distinguishes red from the other colors.

(C) Khmer uses a basic word corresponding to English “blue” for most leaves, but uses its basic word corresponding to English “green” for unripe bananas.

(D) The word “orange” in English has the same origin as the equivalent word in Spanish.

(E) Most languages do not have a basic word that distinguishes gray from other colors, although gray is commonly found in nature.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

I see a couple questions about this one, and since I love material that is related to language, I will jump in and offer my thoughts. (Disclaimer: I do not speak Russian, but I still got the right answer.) As I typically do with CR (and RC) questions, I took a peek at the question stem before I read through the passage. This helps me wrap my head around the information as I encounter it, rather than read the passage, read the question, and reread the passage, a more time-consuming process that only fuels any anxiety I might be feeling over the question.

Okay, so we need to  weaken  or  undermine  the conclusion. In such questions, I find it useful to determine  exactly  what that conclusion may be so that I can form a plan of attack. (By the way, it helps on graduate-level tests such as this one to understand the three common "under"s: undermine (weaken); undercut (weaken); underscore (strengthen).) What do we need to zero in on?

The first sentence provides a premise for the conclusion of the second sentence, that  speakers of... languages   evidence a more finely discriminated kinship system than English speakers do.  Interesting. I guess we are meant to interpret this  kinship system  as a  linguistic  kinship system, rather than as a reflection of actual familial attitudes, but I do not want to get too distracted. The second half of the passage perfectly parallels the first, starting with a second premise and building a conclusion from it, swapping out words for family ties for words for colors. The logic is similar: with English as a touchstone,  speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors...  must be  perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors . To put a dent in the argument, we will need to find some information to suggest that the linguistic causal relationship of fewer words about a certain topic = less refined thinking or perceptual understanding about that topic is inaccurate.

Analysis: If English speakers use the same word,   blue  , for a spectrum of colors that they   are  able to distinguish between , then their thinking about the color blue is not lacking anything in the way of a perceptual understanding that the Russians with their two words may possess. Although English was held up as the seemingly less deficient language in the second conclusion, there is textual evidence from the first comparison that it is not on par with Russian when it comes to splitting linguistic hairs. Thus, this answer choice would weaken the conclusion.  Green light.

Analysis: Although fascinating, this answer says nothing of a refinement in understanding of color based on a language-to-language comparison. We are not interested in  almost every language , especially without a comparison between the number of words for the same color.  Red light.

Analysis: This is a nice distraction, with a one-to-one comparison in each case: English  blue  equates to this Khmer word for  most leaves , while English  green  equates to the same Khmer word to describe  unripe bananas . However, we do not get any information on  perceptual ability to distinguish colors . In other words, it takes a projection of English color names to suggest that speakers of Khmer can distinguish between two distinct colors, and that is a little backwards, right? This could fall perfectly in line with the logic of the argument, for all we know.  Red light.

Analysis: Now we are getting into etymologies? What would that prove, in terms of perceptual ability? We have no word-count-to-word-count comparison between the two languages here, so this choice misses the mark.  Red light.

Analysis: This is a little similar to (B) in its incorporation of a vague  most languages . Notice, too, that there is a vital missing component: there is no distinction between any of these languages, the number of words they may or may not use to describe this color known as   gray  . The issue is not whether the color appears in nature and languages have a word for it, but whether the speakers of a language with fewer words for a color than another language has possess the ability to perceive what that more word-laden language outlines.  Red light.

In all, the only answer that follows the linear logic of the passage is (A). I would be happy to discuss any further questions anybody has on this one. For now, I will sign off in my typical fashion and wish everyone happy studies.

- Andrew

bhaskar123 · Answer

I think Ans is B, The conclusion is speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English has must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English can distinguish. To weaken this conclusion, we need to show that speakers of other languages can distinguish among various colors. B says speakers can distinguish among Red and other colors so this means they are not unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English..

I think ans is B.

I think ans is B.

Farina · Answer

I do not understand the answer choice A. I selected C but its wrong

sony1000 · Answer

Not sure is A, I can only add an explanation but not 100%. I think the Russian language has many different names for different family members but I am not sure about the uncles differentiation. May be someone that speaks russian can help us with that. However, if that was the case the statement is missing some details.

_________________

GMAT loosers are born not made !!!

Signature Read More

unraveled · Answer

The passage tries to analogize that lesser basic words for colors in a language means that people speaking those languages are unable to distinguish between colors.
B. What about the differentiation between other colors(except red). Conclusion still holds with an exception of red color. May be all languages evolved enough to uses a different word for red from others. INCORRECT.
C. Gives a specific example of a language with a specific basic word compared to English. However, the option doesn't hits the conclusion as it doesn't touches upon whether Khmer has less basic words and still people speaking this language are able to distinguish between colors. INCORRECT.
D. At best irrelevant. INCORRECT.
E. Tells us about an exception that exists in almost all languages. INCORRECT.

A. If English uses one word for two variants of a color which English speaking people can differentiate then this option takes on the passage head on, weakening conclusion. CORRECT.

Answer A.

Vivek1707 · Answer

The problem with A which some people may face is that the argument talks about speakers of language  THAT  have  FEWER basic words  for colours  than ENGLISH . So isn't a weakener suppose to focus on languages  OTHER THAN  English ?

The key here is to notice that the heart of the argument lies in the following

***  Number of words = evidence of perceptual ability i.e. fewer words = Less ability and more words = more ability

So A says that that

English, though it has fewer words, it can still distinguish between different shades of blue and hence its a weakener.

Another parallel example which may help

Suppose someone argues: People with fewer books than Alice are less intelligent. I have to weaken this argument

Say the answer choice reads: Alice owns 10 books and Bob owns 100 books. Alice is just as intelligent as Bob.

This is still a weakener, you may say that argument was about people with fewer books than Alice but the heart of argument is less books = less intelligence --> answer choice weakens it.

Subtle but still a weakner

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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