Support A metaphor is the application of a word or phrase to something to which it does not literally apply in order to emphasize or indicate a similarity between that to which it would ordinarily apply and that to which it is—nonliterally—being applied. ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████
The author claims it is impossible for all uses of language to be metaphorical, contrary to what “some extremists” believe. This is demonstrated logically: the author tells us that unless some uses of language are literal, no uses of language can be nonliteral. By the definition given, metaphor is a nonliteral use of language. Therefore, there must be literal uses of language.
P1. Any nonliteral uses → some literal uses;
P2. Metaphor is a nonliteral use;
Therefore, there must be some literal uses.
The author’s conclusion is that it “cannot be so” that all uses of language are metaphorical.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
It is not ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████████
This is a good statement of the author’s conclusion. The argument is designed to prove that there must be some literal uses of language, and since metaphor is nonliteral, that means it’s impossible for all language use to be metaphorical.
Either all uses ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████████
This is not a claim the author makes. The argument takes for granted the existence of some nonliteral uses (metaphor) and attempts to prove that there must also be literal uses. It’s not all-or-nothing.
Nonliteral meaning is ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ███████ █████████
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It is used by the author in combination with affirming the sufficient condition (nonliteral use being possible) to conclude that literal uses must exist. This is a premise, not a conclusion.
Metaphors are nonliteral ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ███████ ████████
This claim is not supported by anything else in the argument. It affirms the sufficient condition of the conditional claim made by the author to bring us to the conclusion that literal uses of language must exist. In other words, this is a premise.
The ordinary meanings ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██ ██ █████████████ ██ █████████
The author never says this. The ordinary meanings of words play no part in this argument, which just focuses on the theoretical debate of whether language is 100% metaphor or not.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic