Last visit was: 18 May 2024, 00:28 It is currently 18 May 2024, 00:28
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Status:mba here i come!
Posts: 151
Own Kudos [?]: 1941 [19]
Given Kudos: 48
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 121
Own Kudos [?]: 700 [1]
Given Kudos: 41
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Booth '15 (M)
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Status:Final Countdown
Posts: 320
Own Kudos [?]: 1314 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: United States (NY)
GPA: 3.82
WE:Account Management (Retail Banking)
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 1216 [0]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
thevenus wrote:
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.
Fish can be from river/lake, sea is not necessarily involved.
(B) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
Strong paraphrasing, weakens the argument by giving additional idea.
(C) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
Other languages are not in the scope.
(D) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
Doesn't mean that they should have a word for sea as well.
(E) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.
Then they must have the word.
(B) Wins
Taking from above explanation, in E, if Proto-Indo-European guys were nomadic, they should have got this word by visiting any of sea or oceans while their nomadic adventures. Shouldn't this choice also weaken the argument?
Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 912 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
Hi - In questions like this, you have to be very careful as to what they mean by argument.

In this question the argument is the lack of the word for sea, being evidence for their living conditions.

SO the fact they are nomadic or not has nothing to do with that. You need a counter argument for using linguisitics to prove living conditions.

That is provided in the OA

James
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 216
Own Kudos [?]: 474 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
ONLY B comes closer to the answer....
E cannot be right as if the people were nomadic.... why did they have different words for cold places, snow, winter etc and none for sea ? It would mean they never came close to sea..... and wandered all near snow bound areas...
Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 41 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
MBAhereIcome wrote:
We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.
(B) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
(C) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
(D) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
(E) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.

The author assumes that the words winter," "snow," and "wolf" are elements that present the culture. So, our task here is to undermine this assumptions. So choice "B" does that.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 193 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.29
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
While it's easy to get to the answer. It sort of goes against GMAT rule - "what some people do or say rarely matters".

I have rarely seen an argument starting with "some" in the correct answer.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1023
Own Kudos [?]: 1788 [0]
Given Kudos: 2562
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
this is a LSAT question, and ones can see how a LSAT question is much different from a gmat question. I believe this question is not much useful for gmat test takers to practice.

The first time I read B, I have a feeling that B is the answer. Nevertheless, using the logic, it is hard to find out why B is correct. The pattern in B is that B gives an alternative cause, but B does not connect directly with the argument. Meanwhile, A,C,D can be safely ruled out.
I think the reason E is incorrect b/c E needs many more assumptions to e a correct answer.
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2018
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V31
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
NonYankee wrote:
MBAhereIcome wrote:
We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.
(B) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
(C) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
(D) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
(E) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.

Thoughts on the prompt:
It says that language reveals how its speakers lived. Then a conclusion is drawn based on the presence of three words and the absence of a word for "sea."

A: Fish can come from lakes and rivers. If you fail to consider this, you might think this choice weakens the argument. It's a trap!
B: This is noteworthy. This could mean speakers of Proto-Indo-European actually did live near a sea. Good answer choice.
C: This is irrelevant.
D: This is irrelevant.
E: This is irrelevant.

I would choose answer choice B.

Side note: Languages vary in the number of names they have for colors. The minimum number of terms for any known language is two (light and dark). But this doesn't mean that speakers of that language don't see colors the way English speakers do. There's a lot of interesting stuff about color-naming on Wikipedia.

Edit: Edited to add side note.

Option B uses the word 'some'. Doesn't this mean that those languages could or could not include the one mentioned above?
Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Posts: 226
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [0]
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
Zaidf123 wrote:
NonYankee wrote:
MBAhereIcome wrote:
We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.
(B) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
(C) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."
(D) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."
(E) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.

Thoughts on the prompt:
It says that language reveals how its speakers lived. Then a conclusion is drawn based on the presence of three words and the absence of a word for "sea."

A: Fish can come from lakes and rivers. If you fail to consider this, you might think this choice weakens the argument. It's a trap!
B: This is noteworthy. This could mean speakers of Proto-Indo-European actually did live near a sea. Good answer choice.
C: This is irrelevant.
D: This is irrelevant.
E: This is irrelevant.

I would choose answer choice B.

Side note: Languages vary in the number of names they have for colors. The minimum number of terms for any known language is two (light and dark). But this doesn't mean that speakers of that language don't see colors the way English speakers do. There's a lot of interesting stuff about color-naming on Wikipedia.

Edit: Edited to add side note.

Option B uses the word 'some'. Doesn't this mean that those languages could or could not include the one mentioned above?

That is exactly the reason why I chose option E over option B !
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17312
Own Kudos [?]: 851 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts