Q7 - Gotera: Infants lack the motor

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This is a really tough argument. Often it's true that arguments that are the most heavily flawed are the toughest to understand, and that's the case here -- the gaps between each of the elements is the original argument are so big that it's tough to see how these elements are supposed to connect.

If you run into this situation on an assumption family question, what we generally recommend is that you work, roughly speaking, backwards -- that is, start by considering the author's final, or main, point.

In this case, it would be that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental. In other words -- the point at which we learn to talk is entirely based on when we learn how to physically control our mouths, and nothing else.

Now think about the closest premise that is meant to link up to the conclusion (sometimes there will be two premises that are equally to the conclusion, so don't force it if you don't see it).

In this case, we can think of the previous sentence as the closest link -- most children are several years old before they can physically control their mouths to speak.

At this point, you want to consider, does it make sense that this premise leads to this conclusion? Almost always, you will think not, and that's the case here --

There is plenty wrong in terms of the link between this premise and the author's point.

1. We're not actually told when children develop speech skills -- if they are before the age of "several years old," or well after, this argument falls apart.
2. "Entirely" is way too strong -- how do we know this? There is no evidence that no other factors can play a role.

You can go backwards from here if you feel you need to, but most of the time your goal should be to understand the conclusion and the supporting premises -- the argument core, as we call it -- as well as possible, and we've just done that -- we've seen a lot of gaps, and now we can evaluate the answer choices.

We want to find something that MUST be true for the conclusion to be true.

Does (A) have to be true? Absolutely.

If (A) wasn't true, it would mean that there are other elements that impact speech acquisition. (A) is an answer that must be true in order for the argument to be true, and it is therefore correct.

Let's evaluate the other choices quickly:

(B) doesn't have to be true -- we don't need to know anything about the entire babbling stage (this is not discussed directly), and "intentionally move their tongues," though related to ability to create sounds of languages, is not the same thing, and therefore this is not directly relevant.

(C) is not relevant to our core and can be eliminated fairly quickly.

(D) doesn't have to be true for the author to make his point.

(E) would, if anything, hurt the argument (because it shows mental development might also be necessary). Therefore, this is certainly an answer that doesn't have to be true.

Hope that helps!


#officialexplanation

[yusangmin]

sorry i just dont freakin understand this. for the most part i never get these if assumption or assumption "connecting evidence and conc" questions

however for some LSAT questions, for some danged reason, i am not able to comprehend the MEANING itself of the stimulus or meaning of it.

please help!

thanks!

[alana.canfield]

I hate to have so much trouble on a question numbered 7.......

My first road block is in being able to see that (A) is correct. I would have chosen (A) if it had said "Speech acquisition is a function only of one's ability to INTENTIONALLY produce the sounds of spoken language". But the word intentionally was not there. The stimulus says infants produce babbling sounds randomly. It doesn't say that those babbling sounds aren't sometimes coincidentally the sounds of spoken language. So answer (A) seemed to go against the whole point of the conclusion, which is about motor control being the only factor in speech acquisition. Because according to (A), even a babbling baby who unintentionally speaks a word without any motor control, has satisfied the only requirement for speech acquisition.

Having struck (A) out, I had a lot of trouble choosing an answer, but eventually landed on (C). The reasoning for (C) is that if the initial babbling stage was NOT completed during infancy, then it could be a factor affecting the children talked about in the second sentence of the stimulus, who have learned to voluntary produce most vowel and consonant sounds, which is an implied attribute of speech acquisition. If babbling were a factor, then motor control would not be the ONLY factor in speech acquisition. Now in retrospect I'm having trouble finding a reason (C) is wrong. So far the closest I've come is that maybe the word "children" doesn't include toddlers and there is a gap between infancy and children (the toddler stage) where the babbling stage could be completed and not affect the argument.

If anyone could add some more insight into why (A) is right and (C) is wrong, I would really appreciate it. Or even just a fresh view on looking at the problem would be helpful.

[shirando21]

The conclusion of the argument is: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental.

You will find "Speech acquisition" is a new term in the conclusion. It is not mentioned in the premises provided. So according to the new term rule, you will have to find an answer that has it to be the correct answer. A is the only answer.

[alana.canfield]

The conclusion of the argument is: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental.

You will find "Speech acquisition" is a new term in the conclusion. It is not mentioned in the premises provided. So according to the new term rule, you will have to find an answer that has it to be the correct answer. A is the only answer.

Hm. I've never heard of the 'new term rule' but reading this question again I totally agree with you. And it sounds like a great rule, in general, so thanks for sharing. I think I was over-complicating the problem - so I'm going to address the answer to my question above, in case anyone else has the same misunderstanding. The reason that I found (A) to be weak was that it seemed to be saying that even an infant who unintentionally produced the sounds of spoken language had somehow satisfied the only requirement for "speech acquisition". My misunderstanding was that "speech acquisition" in this context is referring the the entire process of acquiring speech, and it is not referring to some arbitrary threshold beyond which you can now speak. In retrospect, it seems that the problem of over-complicating a stimulus (one of my major problems) is solved by practice. THe 'new term rule' mentioned above becomes an obvious thing you look out for naturally after you've practiced enough questions... even if you've never even heard of the rule. So I'm just saying there is hope for people who often over-complicate the issues - practice brings out patterns in wrong answers that will jump out at you before you even have a chance to over-complicate things.

[shirando21]

I learned that from Matt:)

[wgutx08]

I wanted to pick A but then thought it was a trap. Still don't see how A is necessary.

Suppose speech acquisition is a function of not only sound-producing ability, but also something else. But that something else is also a motor control process rather than abstract/mental, then the conclusion would still stand?

Or is this another one of the 999 pseudo-necessary-actually-sufficient assumptions in LSAT? I wasted so much time on this one after excluding A, this is so frustrating.

Dear Geeks, is it safe to conclude that if there is a sufficient assumption answer in an assumption question with a gap situation, it is probably intended to be the right answer? ---- How often does it happen that they give you both a real necessary and a sufficient answer, expecting you to pick the real necessary one?

Thanks so much!!

Edit: WAIT--- A is not a sufficient assumption either!! We are only told that motor control is a factor in producing sounds.
To make it sufficient, I would need one more assumption: that produce the sounds of spoken languages is entirely a motor control process.

So how am I supposed to pick A???? Please help....

[momolaw]

Maybe I am wrong about this but here is my opinion on this question...
Necessary assumption questions are about finding a gap and depending on the argument a gap can be obvious or subtle.

now, looking at the conclusion we can instantaneously know that it is way too absolute and strong; the word "entirely" worries me since the premise does not provide me with enough information about speech acquisition.

So what is the argument offering me to support this conclusion?
two premises.

first one is about infants lacking motor ability required to voluntarily produce sounds and we can infer that since infants lack the ability, they also cannot voluntarily produce sound.

voluntarily produce sound----> require motor ability

the second one is about older children being able to produce most vowels and consonant sounds of their language and since this relates to the first premise of voluntarily producing sounds we can infer again that they have motor ability.

gathering these two premises we can sort of get the sense that the premises are operating on the basis of the require motor ability conditional logic.

so how can the premises which discuss about the motor ability produce the conclusion about speech acquisition?

the author must be assuming that the speech acquisition and voluntarily producing sounds of their languages are two related things which (A) addresses perfectly.

[Puffy Pants]

I still cannot get the jump in this question! Any help is appreciated.

- Infants cannot produce particular sounds voluntarily.
- Most are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most language sounds.

= Speech acquisition is entirely a motor process and not a mental one.

I had originally chosen B) Thinking that if I negate it and infants could intentionally move their tongues...then Gotera's argument that being able to control your tongue/mouth (motor skills) is enough to acquire language would come apart?

I think I over complicated it. I thought that negating a premise on required assumption questions would help : Speech acquisition is not only a function of one ability to produce the sounds of language?

So infants cant produce sounds - Older children can produce language sounds = Speech acquisition is a Motor process


A) Speech acqusition is a function of being able of producing language sounds = older children can = infants cannot

If negated and speech acquisition was not a function = older children being able to do it and younger children unable would destroy the argument.

Am I thinking correctly?

Thank you!!

PP

[christine.defenbaugh]

Lots of great questions in this thread!

Puffy Pants, you're thinking through some good stuff, but you want to be careful about how you're breaking down the information in the argument core.

- Infants cannot produce particular sounds voluntarily. So infants lack one specific set of motor skills - the motor skill to voluntarily produce particular sounds
- Most are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most language sounds. So these older children have that specific set of motor skills - the motor skill to voluntarily produce particular sounds

= Speech acquisition is entirely a motor process and not a mental one.

Notice that the only motor process discussed in the premises is the specific process of producing particular sounds. Gotera is not necessarily claiming that any and every motor process is enough for speech acquisition - just this one specific one!

I had originally chosen B) Thinking that if I negate it and infants could intentionally move their tongues...then Gotera's argument that being able to control your tongue/mouth (motor skills) is enough to acquire language would come apart?

Negating is a great way to test an answer choice on a Necessary Assumption question! But if we negate (B), all we would know is that infants have one motor skill - intentionally moving their tongues. Speech acquisition could still be entirely a motor control process, as long as it was based on a different motor skill, or set of skills.

What if we learned that the babies had the motor control to grab onto objects intentionally with their hands? Would that hurt the argument? No! It wouldn't, because babies having some other motor skill doesn't change the fact that they lack the particular motor skill that speech acquisition apparently needs!

The negation of (B) doesn't hurt the argument, for the same reason!

Now, be careful with the negation of (A)! The negation is not that speech acquisition is NOT a function the ability to produce sound, but rather that speech acquisition isn't ONLY a function of that. In other words, negating (A) tells us that speech acquisition is affected by other things too!

So, now we know that while the ability to produce sounds matters, it's not the ONLY thing that matters - and we don't have any idea what these other things that matter are. Are they motor skills? Are they abstract or mental processes? No idea!! Since they could be either, we can now no longer conclude that speech acquisition is ENTIRELY motor control. BOOM - argument blows up!

This ties in to wgutx08's question above, as well.

Suppose speech acquisition is a function of not only sound-producing ability, but also something else. But that something else is also a motor control process rather than abstract/mental, then the conclusion would still stand?

A careful negation of (A) doesn't tell us whether that 'something else' is motor control or abstract/mental. If it WERE a motor control thing, then the conclusion would still be fine. But we don't know that it is. The negation simply tells us that something else is in play - since we have no way of knowing what that thing in play IS, then without more information it would leave open the possibility that the 'something else' is abstract/mental. And that possibility is enough to make the conclusion unconcludable.

Notice that we don't know for certain that the conclusion is FALSE - but we don't have to. We simply have to show that the conclusion is not necessarily concludable from the information on the table to 'destroy the argument'.

Please let me know if this helps clear things up a bit!

[Mab6q]

Lots of great questions in this thread!

Puffy Pants, you're thinking through some good stuff, but you want to be careful about how you're breaking down the information in the argument core.

- Infants cannot produce particular sounds voluntarily. So infants lack one specific set of motor skills - the motor skill to voluntarily produce particular sounds
- Most are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most language sounds. So these older children have that specific set of motor skills - the motor skill to voluntarily produce particular sounds

= Speech acquisition is entirely a motor process and not a mental one.

Notice that the only motor process discussed in the premises is the specific process of producing particular sounds. Gotera is not necessarily claiming that any and every motor process is enough for speech acquisition - just this one specific one!

I had originally chosen B) Thinking that if I negate it and infants could intentionally move their tongues...then Gotera's argument that being able to control your tongue/mouth (motor skills) is enough to acquire language would come apart?

Negating is a great way to test an answer choice on a Necessary Assumption question! But if we negate (B), all we would know is that infants have one motor skill - intentionally moving their tongues. Speech acquisition could still be entirely a motor control process, as long as it was based on a different motor skill, or set of skills.

What if we learned that the babies had the motor control to grab onto objects intentionally with their hands? Would that hurt the argument? No! It wouldn't, because babies having some other motor skill doesn't change the fact that they lack the particular motor skill that speech acquisition apparently needs!

The negation of (B) doesn't hurt the argument, for the same reason!

Now, be careful with the negation of (A)! The negation is not that speech acquisition is NOT a function the ability to produce sound, but rather that speech acquisition isn't ONLY a function of that. In other words, negating (A) tells us that speech acquisition is affected by other things too!

So, now we know that while the ability to produce sounds matters, it's not the ONLY thing that matters - and we don't have any idea what these other things that matter are. Are they motor skills? Are they abstract or mental processes? No idea!! Since they could be either, we can now no longer conclude that speech acquisition is ENTIRELY motor control. BOOM - argument blows up!

This ties in to wgutx08's question above, as well.

Suppose speech acquisition is a function of not only sound-producing ability, but also something else. But that something else is also a motor control process rather than abstract/mental, then the conclusion would still stand?

A careful negation of (A) doesn't tell us whether that 'something else' is motor control or abstract/mental. If it WERE a motor control thing, then the conclusion would still be fine. But we don't know that it is. The negation simply tells us that something else is in play - since we have no way of knowing what that thing in play IS, then without more information it would leave open the possibility that the 'something else' is abstract/mental. And that possibility is enough to make the conclusion unconcludable.

Notice that we don't know for certain that the conclusion is FALSE - but we don't have to. We simply have to show that the conclusion is not necessarily concludable from the information on the table to 'destroy the argument'.

Please let me know if this helps clear things up a bit!

I think what the negation of A demonstrates is that it helps sometimes to be flexible with a negation if it doesn't completely destroy the argument. It weakens the argument by suggesting other other possible functions, by does not completely destroy the argument. Sometimes when you rely on these tests as bright-lines rules, it can be ineffective. Simply put, the LSAT requires you to be flexible as times.

[contropositive]

The conclusion of the argument is: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental.

You will find "Speech acquisition" is a new term in the conclusion. It is not mentioned in the premises provided. So according to the new term rule, you will have to find an answer that has it to be the correct answer. A is the only answer.

I learned this "New Guy Rule" from OhPatrick. I know this is something that must be followed for Sufficient Assumption question, but this question is a Necessary Assumption. Patrick said that for Sufficient Assumptions the "New Guy" MUST be in the answer choice for it to be considered as a correct answer. I sometimes see this work on Necessary Assumptions too but I don't know if it's always safe to do that on Necessary Assumptions. Anyone have insight?

[tommywallach]

It's definitively NOT true for necessary. Only for sufficient.

-t

P.S. Necessary questions often bring in something totally new.

[phoebster21]

This question really tripped me up.

For practice, CAN someone please confirm whether these OTHER assumptions ARE necessary for this question. I find that it helps to sometimes to try uncover ALL of the necessary assumptions of a question (even if getting to a point of absurdity).


1) Babbling sounds are not considered speech acquisition
2) Infants are not able to acquire speech
3) An ability to produce vowel and consonant sounds of a language is considered speech acquisition


Are these ALSO some necessary assumptions of the argument?

[pewals13]

1) I don't think you need to assume this, babbling sounds could be a part of the process of developing the tongue strength required for motor control. If you're saying that babbling sounds do not constitute having acquired speech, I think you're correct.

2) Agreed.

3) Agreed. Might tweak it to say "is required for speech acquisition."

[dhlim3]

The conclusion can be written as:

Speech Acquisition -> Motor control (SA requires MC)

Negation: ~Motor Control -> ~Speech Acquisition. (Without MC, SA is impossible).



Negating B does not destroy the conclusion because just because the necessary condition is met (Ability to intentionally move the tongue, which in the context of this problem is Motor Control) does not mean its sufficient condition (Speech Acquisition) must be met. That is a Mistake Reversal flaw. In order to destroy the argument, we must show that speech acquisition is possible without Motor control (because then it shows that there are factors other than motor control that contributes to speech acquisition). However, all that negation of B does is showing that Motor Control is NOT the sufficient condition for speech acquisition. This does nothing to destroy the argument.

[andrewgong01]

^ I viewed "B" bit differently from the above post. I viewed it as wrong not from the negation point of view but rather it seemed more like a premise booster confirming that infants lack intentional motor ability. That said, now that I think about using the negation, I am confused because the negation would seem to challenge the premise directly that infants do have the motor ability BUT ( I am not sure about it) I think the other reason that made "B" wrong, through the negation point of view, is that we don't know if moving tongue is the ONLY motor ability required. Perhaps there are other things required for motor ability such as controlling jaw movements and hence the argument is not fully destroyed.

[obobob]

Ok. This is a stupid question, but since nobody really asked nor addressed about this:

Can somebody explain what (A) is literally saying? I might be a little thrown off by reading all the confusions people posted and different explanation in addition to already confusing stimulus & question. At this point now, I am like confused with the meaning of what the answer choice (A) is saying.

Can I understand it as:
Speech acquisition function --> Motor ability (which I mean "one's ability to produce the sounds of spoken language")

[ohthatpatrick]

(A) is just saying, "The only thing you need to look at in terms of assessing someone's speech acquisition is whether they are able to produce the sounds of spoken language".

The author argues, "Since a lack of motor skills keeps infants from being able to produce the sounds of spoken language, speech acquisition is purely a motor skill process."

It's akin to saying, "Patrick's inability to finish more than 3 Games in 35 minutes keeps him from scoring a 170. Thus, we can conclude that scoring a 170 is entirely about one's skills at Games, rather than about LR or RC skills."

That argument is assuming that "Getting a 170 is a function only of one's ability to complete the Games section in 35 minutes."

[obobob]

Hi,

Can anyone confirm my analogy?

P1: People who do not have phonemic awareness cannot always spell correctly.
P2: Most people are 6 y/o before they can invariably spell correctly.
C: We can conclude that perfect dictational skill is entirely a phonemic awareness skill rather than anything else.

(A) Perfect dictational skill is a function only of one's being able to invariably produce correct spelling.

========

Also, I am still lost with understanding explanations for this question:

So (A) in the actual question is a necessary assumption for the conclusion to stand but isn't a sufficient assumption, is that correct?

I think I am still kind of confused since the conclusion in the original stimulus doesn't seem to really connect with the first two premises: it's like telling us about 1) when infants are able to make particular sounds voluntarily and 2) motor ability is necessary to voluntarily produce particular sounds, and then it concludes that "speech acquisition" is entirely a process of making particular sounds voluntarily.

Besides the premise sentences' introduction about the connection between "motor ability" and "ability to produce sounds voluntarily," could I have been able to solve the question disregarding the second premise and just focusing on the first stimulus and the conclusion? (in terms of being able to see that the answer choice (A) is a necessary assumption for the argument to stand?)