Q13 - In many languages other than

[pmcnally]

Argument summarized by previous poster on Q12:


Premises of the argument:
1. Languages other than English have seperate words ("mother's brother," "father's brother" for the same word in English ("uncle").
2. Such languages practice a more discriminated kinship system than English.
3. The number of words to describe color varies widely from language to language.

Conclusion: Speakers of languages that have fewer basic words for colors than English must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as speakers of English.


Q13 asks - the conclusion concerning words for colors can be properly drawn if which one of the following were assumed?

really struggle with this one and still haven't been able to sort it out. B is the answer but any help figuring out why that's the correct choice would be much appreciated.

[cyruswhittaker]

My thoughts on this one were that first, the question is asking for a sufficient assumption rather than a required assumption, so I looked at the argument and tried to find where the gap in reasoning is.

The premises don't discuss anything regarding perception; rather, it is only introduced in the conclusion of the argument. Even though there are less words for colors (premise), why does that automatically get linked to the number of colors a person could perceptually distinguish (conclusion)?

The sufficient assumption in B is broad in its wording and links together the disparate parts. Basically, it provides an answer to the question above: a language provides a unique word for each sensory quality (in this case color) that the speakers of that language can perceptually distinguish.

So if a person in the language could perceptually distinguish the color, there would be word for it. But since there's not a word for it, then it means that they can't perceptually distinguish that particular color. So hence the comparison in the conclusion between English and languages that have less words for colors can be properly drawn.

I'd also appreciate any feedback in my thought-process, explanation. Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Whoa! Great explanation!!! You beat me to the punch! Well, since I just spent fifteen minutes working on this one, here's my take on it, though honestly, I think yours is better:

So, we're looking for an assumption that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn -- in other words, a sufficient assumption. We need something that allows us to conclude that speakers of languages with fewer words for colors than English has cannot distinguish as many colors as English speakers.

The structure of that argument core should set off some red flags. Nowhere do the premises talk about color perception, and yet that's what the conclusion is all about. So we can be pretty confident that we're looking for an assumption that connects color-words with color-perception.

(B) gets the job done. If every language has a different word for each sensory quality -- which would include colors -- that its speakers can perceive, then speakers of a language with only five color-words, say, would only be able to perceptually distinguish five colors. So if a language had fewer color-words than English, it would have to be the case that its speakers could perceptually distinguish a correspondingly smaller number of colors than English-speakers.

(A) is way out of scope, clearly having nothing to do with colors.

(C) is also out of scope. The conclusion isn't about category distinctions, it's about the connection between color-words and color-perception.

(D) seems less out of scope, since it mentions perceptual distinction, but it doesn't tell us anything about how speakers of different languages compare to each other in terms of how many colors they can distinguish.

(E) might explain why some languages have fewer words for color, but doesn't address the issue of color perception.

[ercmilla]

Greetings! First time poster. I love the material, MLSAT!

I'm caught up in the question over the difference between answer B and answer D. I chose D in the end. I can see that it uses the language "frequently used words," which would be valid in a necessary assumption question, but not in a sufficient assumption question. However, the above posters don't cite that as the reason that answer D is wrong.

The term "sensory" in B seems to be the main reason you two think D is wrong and B is right. The stimulus never uses the term "sensory" to describe the words. However, "categorical words" is a superset of "sensory words" because sensory is a type of category. As an aside, the "brother's mother" information isn't sensory at all - it's categorical. I realize this wasn't cited in the conclusion, but may serve to underline my thoughts.

[logicfiend]

I liked this question a lot.

For (D), I was thrown off by "short, frequently used words," which doesn't fit "basic words of colors" at all. But (D) is also talking about how languages use these words because it's IMPORTANT to distinguish between these categories. But what do having these different words actually mean?

According to the stimulus, having different words for different categories means people speaking the language are ABLE to distinguish between those categories. (B) gets at this difference, that these different words mean you have the ability to distinguish between the different colors.

[melodyzhuangchina]

For SA questions, focus on the elements of conclusion.

For this question, whatever goes before THEREFORE can be seen as context. What comes after THEREFORE contains a premise: perceptually unable to distinguish many colors, and conclusion: fewer words for colors

Why: perceptually unable to distinguish many colors --> fewer words for colors?

Find an answer that can close the gap between them, which is the answer B: each language has a different basic word for each sensory quality that its speakers can perceptually distinguish.

Because: different people distinguish color based on their sensory quality, and they can only come up with words that their sensory quality can perceive, therefore due to the lesser amount of colors they can perceive, they come up with a comparative amount of words (less words) for colors.

[michellemyxu]

I'm confused by "different" and "for each sensory quality" in B - why do they matter at all? Also, could anyone tell me what "sensory quality" means and why is color a sensory quality??

[ohthatpatrick]

"Sensory qualities" refers to our five modes of sensory perception:
taste, smell, touch, sight, sound

a sensory quality would be any adjective you'd find in any of these categories

TASTE: sweet, salty, acrid, sour, etc.
TOUCH: rough, smooth, bumpy, etc.
SIGHT: big, small, yellow, red, etc.

(I'm not doing all five, you get the point)

The author thinks that if a language only has words for ten different colors, then people who speak that language can only discriminate (see) ten different colors.

Think about all the words we might have for "gray":
silver, ash, gray, mist, chrome, etc.

Some of those are lighter grays, some are darker. We can discriminate many shades of gray. Do we necessarily need a unique (i.e. "different") basic word for each of those shade?

No. Maybe we choose to just call all 8 of our shades of gray by one word: "gray", while a different language actually uses 8 different words to describe the 8 different shades of gray it can discriminate.

In other words, a language might only use ONE word for many different shades of gray, even though its speakers can obviously discriminate a different sensory quality between light gray and dark gray.

The author, meanwhile, is assuming a one-to-one ratio of words to perceptible hues.

He thinks that fewer words for "gray" = fewer shades of gray you can perceive.

That's what (B) is saying.


If a language were to JUST use "gray", does

[michellemyxu]

This is super clear. Thanks Patrick!