PT29.S1.Q16 - living conditions of a vanished culture

pchantar

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16

I chose A and after watching the video I can understand why A is misleading. However, when I was reading the answer choices and considering B, I thought “Why assume that Proto-Indo-European is one of the languages that lack words for prominent elements of the environment of their speakers?”

Another question I had was whether or not the possibility of Proto-Indo-European being a language that lacks words for prominent elements of the environment of their speakers weakens the argument. I think that this possibility does not weaken the argument, i.e. does nothing, because we just don't know if Proto-Indo-European is one of those languages or not. Thoughts?

Help please

SoCal Japorean

I'll take a crack at the explanation.

The core of the argument is this:

Culture that lacked a word for "something" ---> Likely did not have contact with that "something"

There is an assumption that there are not other relevant factors that wouldn't make it likely that the culture did not have contact with "something" that they lacked a word for.

Let me give you an example to help clarify. If The Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't have a word for "sea" and had words for "snow" AND we found Surf Boards all around their camp AND Shark Fin Soup was their Staple Food, AND there were pictograms of whales and Seagulls on their ceremonial carvings and on their cave walls; then it wouldn't seem that likely that Proto-Indo-Europeans were isolated from the ocean.

does a good job in weakening the argument. It states that Lacking a word for "something" is not a Logical requirement for that culture not being in contact with that "something".

Let me know if you have any other questions.

pchantar

Thank you, SoCal Japorean.