Question on Main Point - Metaphors Question Stem

lexiorourke9lexiorourke9 Core Member
in Logical Reasoning 6 karma

Hello! I got the answer right for this LR question, but was having a hard time unpacking the last sentence of the prompt. I know starting with "for unless" is a premise but the wording is a bit convoluted.

"Some extremists claim that all uses of language are metaphorical. But this cannot be so, for unless some uses of words are literal, there can be no nonliteral uses of any words.

Comments

  • trevorNYCgoaltrevorNYCgoal Core Member
    307 karma

    These are definitely two convoluted sentences. Translation/simplification advice that I received that always stuck with me was that when you're struggling, try to go word-for-word. I know that the odds of having that luxury of time on test day or during timed PTs are slim to none, but while you have the practice time it can certainly make a difference.

    Similarly, in my wrong answer journal (WAJ), I always try and note questions that I struggled with because of a word or phrase in the stimulus that had me questioning the meaning. Even for questions that you get correct, it might be helpful to take note of those kinds of questions. I believe the results of learning new words and challenging phrases can be cumulative in trying to study and get better at reading and understanding.

    First time reading this through, my first point of contention was with the word, "metaphorical." Meta is a common prefix (I always think metamorphosis as my go to example word), but I still wanted to be sure of my understanding. I know what a metaphor is, but I decided to search for a definition of metaphorical. In essence, it is figurative, it's related to how a metaphor applies a phrase or meaning to something of which it is not literally applicable. Thus, how I read the first sentence is that a group of people (extremists) claim that all uses of language are applying an idea (or meaning) to something that it can't actually be applied to.

    Second sentence starts pretty simply with a refute of the previous idea. This sentence is going to counter the extremists' idea that all use of language is metaphorical.

    But as you mentioned, the "for unless" is what makes this challenging. Unless is a group three translation, so it would be Negate, sufficient. Similarly, after the comma it contains "No," which is Negate, necessary. If we were to translate that into Lawgic, we would get:

    SUWL representing "Some uses of words are literal" and TCBNUAW representing "There can be no nonliteral uses of any words

    /SUWL->/TCBNUAW

    The contrapositive being: TCBNUAW->SUWL.

    As I worked through this in Lawgic (and I do believe I'm correct although I would welcome any corrections if not!), I think this is one of those instances where it might be easier to understand that particular phrase intuitively.

    The extremists' argument is countered by stating that unless there are some literal uses of words, then we cannot say there are nonliteral uses of words. Meaning, if even a singular word is used literally, then not all language can said to be metaphorical because a word can be applied to something that actually maintains its meaning. The extremists' argument relies on all words being metaphorical, which makes all language metaphorical, and that is countered by explaining that this cannot be the case because even if a singular word is used literally, they we can't say there is no nonliteral meaning.

    I do hope this helps a little bit! I tried to break it down as I understood it. I think really parsing through the language is what makes the difference. Similarly, understanding the extremists argument makes the counter a little easier to understand, even if not fully understanding at first.

Sign In or Register to comment.