Professor Beckstein: Support American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans. ██████████ ██ ██ ███ █ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ███
█████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ███
Professor Beckstein claims that American Sign Language is not a foreign language, since it is the native language of many North Americans. Thus, he concludes, students should not be allowed to meet the university's foreign language requirement by studying American Sign Language.
Professor Sedley responds with an analogy, pointing out that since French and Spanish are also the native languages of many North Americans, by Professor Beckstein's logic, students should also not be allowed to fulfill the foreign language requirement by studying those languages, as they currently can. Professor Sedley claims this would be ridiculous.
Professor Sedley uses which one ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████████ █████████
attempting to demonstrate ████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ █ ███████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████████
This is correct. Professor Sedley insists that the reasoning used by Professor Beckstein would, if it were consistent, also lead to French and Spanish being disqualified as languages that fulfill the foreign language requirement — a conclusion that Sedley says is ridiculous.
trying to show ████ █ ███████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██
Professor Sedley never claims that Professor Beckstein's conclusion that American Sign Language should not fulfill the foreign language requirement somehow contradicts the evidence Beckstein provides. Sedley actually doesn't directly mention the specifics of either Beckstein's evidence or his conclusion about American Sign Language. Instead, Sedley focuses entirely on applying the pattern of Beckstein's reasoning to the analogous case of French and Spanish.
questioning an opponent's █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ██████████
Professor Sedley never mentions Professor Beckstein’s authority or qualifications to discuss this topic. He just criticizes the logic of Beckstein’s argument.
offering an alternative ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████
For this answer choice to be correct, Professor Sedley would somehow have to reinterpret the fact that American Sign Language is spoken by many North Americans. He doesn't do that. His argument doesn't directly mention American Sign Language — it relies on an analogy to a different set of languages.
agreeing with the ██████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
Professor Sedley never says whether he agrees with Beckstein’s conclusion or not. He actually doesn't mention the conclusion itself. His point is to criticize the logic leading up to the conclusion, and say that the reason Professor Beckstein provides — that American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans — isn't good enough to justify his conclusion that American Sign Language shouldn't count for the foreign language requirement.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.