PT107.S1.Q16 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author hypothesizes that the ancient culture who spoke Proto-Indo-European lived in a cold climate away from the ocean. This hypothesis is based on applying the principle that we can learn about ancient peoples through their languages to Proto-Indo-European. The language has words for “winter,” “snow,” and “wolf,” but does not have a word for “sea,” leading to the hypothesis that its speakers lived near winter, snow, and wolves (i.e. in a cold climate), but not the sea.

The author assumes that just because we can learn about a culture from its language, the words of an ancient language will correspond exactly to its speakers’ location. In other words, the author assumes that ancient languages have words for every environmental feature of the speakers’ location, and don’t have words for features absent from the speakers’ location.

This does not weaken the argument, because having a word for “fish” is entirely consistent with the author’s hypothesis and assumptions. Fish can be found in freshwater in a cold climate just as easily as in the sea or in a warm climate, so this doesn’t tell us anything new.

This weakens the argument, because it suggests that a language can lack a word for “sea” even if its speakers live near the sea. That undermines the support for the author’s hypothesis, and so weakens the argument.

This does not weaken the argument. The scope of the argument is limited to what we can learn based on the language of a vanished culture, so features of modern languages aren’t really relevant. This just doesn’t impact the argument.

This does not weaken the argument. Having words for “heat” is perfectly consistent with the author’s assumption, because even cold environments contain some heat—for instance, summer, fire, or even body heat. So this doesn’t undermine the author’s argument.

This doesn’t weaken the argument, because a people being nomadic still doesn’t guarantee which environmental features they will and won’t encounter. The author’s argument could apply to the range of a nomadic people as easily as the fixed location of a sedentary people.

PrepTest 107 - Section 1 - Question 16

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action