PT105.S4.Q8 > 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 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The linguist concludes that speaker X’s sentence will be recognized as grammatical by speakers of its language. As premises, he gives three claims:

(1) If a sentence is grammatical, it is diagrammable.

(2) If a sentence is grammatical, it will be recognized as grammatical by speakers of its language.

(3) Speaker X’s sentence is diagrammable.

The linguist mistakes sufficiency and necessity. He assumes that because speaker X’s sentence is “diagrammable,” it is also “grammatical,” and therefore “recognizable.” But “grammatical” is the sufficient condition for “diagrammable,” not the other way around. Perhaps speaker X’s sentence is “diagrammable” but is not grammatical, and is therefore not “recognizable.”

In other words, he draws a conditional connection between “diagrammable” and “recognizable” when no such connection exists.

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. Even if most people can't diagram a sentence correctly, it doesn't affect whether the sentence can be diagrammed.

This points out the linguist’s key flaw. He draws a conditional connection between “diagrammable” and “recognizable” when no such connection exists. It could be that speaker X’s sentence is diagrammable but is ungrammatical. In that case, the conclusion would fall apart.

If this were true, it wouldn’t impact the linguist’s argument either way. His argument rests on the mistaken assumption that all sentences that can be diagrammed can also be recognized as grammatical, not the other way around.

The linguist doesn’t fail to consider this. In fact, it’s just restating his first premise: “only if a sentence can be diagrammed is it grammatical.”

The linguist’s argument only states that all grammatical sentences can be recognized as grammatical. Whether some ungrammatical sentences are recognized as ungrammatical is not relevant.

PrepTest 105 - Section 4 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action