LSAT 107 – Section 1 – Question 16

LSAT 107 - Section 1 - Question 16

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:10

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT107 S1 Q16	+LR	Weaken +Weak Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 19% 161 B 71% 166 C 1% 158 D 3% 160 E 5% 161	135 151 166	+Medium	147.515 +SubsectionMedium

To see how (B) weakens the argument, we need to first understand the assumptions the argument makes.

[Premise 1] Language tells us something about living conditions.
[Premise 2] PIE didn't have a word for "sea". PIE did have words for "winter", "snow", and "wolf".

[Conclusion] PIE people lived in a cold place isolated from the sea.

Do you see how useless Premise 1 actually is? Of course language tells us something about living conditions. You don't need to say that because it's obvious.

Instead, what I need to know, in order for Premise 1 to hook up with Premise 2, is specifically what it is that language tells me about living conditions. Specifically, I need to know that if a language had a word for something, then the feature that word points to existed in the living conditions of the people who spoke that language. (Had the word "winter" which points to a cold season, so PIE people lived in a place with cold seasons. Had the word "snow" which points to snow, so PIE people lived in a cold place. Had the word "wolf" which points to wolf and wolves are awesome.)

I also need to know that if a language lacked a word for something, then the feature that missing word points to did not exist in the living conditions of the people who spoke that language. (Missing the word "sea" which points to sea, so PIE people lived in a place with no sea.)

Those are the huge universal assumptions about the evidentiary power of language that the argument makes. (B) denies those assumptions. It denies universality. It makes the premises less supportive of the conclusion.

(B) doesn't claim whether PIE falls into its group. I know you want to say "we have to assume that PIE is one of those languages in (B)" but you don't. You don't because you don't have to prove the conclusion wrong (and you're trying to do that). Your job is only to make the existing premises less supportive of the conclusion.

That's a distinction introduced way back in the original Core Curriculum lessons on how to weaken arguments. Do not attack the conclusion. Attack the support the premises lend to the conclusion. In other words, wreck the assumptions.

We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for “sea,” yet contains words for “winter,” “snow,” and “wolf.”

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

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.

Notable Assumptions

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.

A word meaning “fish” was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.

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.

Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.

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.

There are no known languages today that lack a word for “sea.”

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.

Proto-Indo-European possesses words for “heat.”

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.

The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.

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.

LSAT 107 – Section 1 – Question 16

LSAT 107 - Section 1 - Question 16

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel