Q23

[hippo3717]

I got this question right but
could someone check my reasoning to pick A as the answer?

I thought D and E were horrible so eliminated immediately.

The question is essentially asking about what would support the former theory, which definition can be found around line 20.
Actually I was having a hard time really understanding the passage but...

I thought that since this definition is saying something along the line of language being used to make the knowledge more solid.

So... attacked the question with that in my mind.

Please?

[tommywallach]

Hey Hippo,

What a rough passage! In spite of all the really confusing language, it mostly boils down to one central debate (as pretty much all LSAT essays do): Is the language used to describe aspects of reality totally random and contextual, or is it somehow objective/standard?

The question is asking what piece of evidence would lend credence to the SECOND of these viewpoints.

(A) If two totally different languages describe certain things using similar words, there must be some underlying reality that the languages are objectively referring to. So this is the answer.

(B) If the second language derived from the first, we haven't yet proven that there's something objective/factual about language's relationship to an object. Of course a language and another language derived from that language would describe objects similarly.

(C) Again, we are only talking about one language, so there's no comparison offered.

(D) Sentence structure is not at issue; it's the words themselves.

(E) This merely says that certain people BELIEVE their language has an essential correspondence to the things it describes. Unfortunately, their belief has no bearing on the reality of language.

I couldn't quite understand your explanation, to be honest, though I'm not sure it's fair to say that (D) and (E) are too horrible to be viable; in fact, (E) is a pretty solid trap answer.

Hope that helps!

-t