Top Law Schools

Narrow down to C and D. But have difficulty knock out C. I tried the negation test. But if signaling each other with sounds or gestures, animals are referring to some sort of concrete objects or abstract ideas...seems that the argument is weakened... wonder why it's not that case?

Here's the argument in the stimulus:

Premise 1: Animals signal each other with sounds and gestures.

Premise 2: Scientists have not proven that these signals refer to anything concrete or abstract.

Conclusion: Scientists have not proven that animals posses language abilities.

The assumption must connect the ability to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas with language. C doesn't do this.

yeah, i get this, but how did you knock off B using the negation test?

TTTeacher wrote:Here's the argument in the stimulus:

Premise 1: Animals signal each other with sounds and gestures.

Premise 2: Scientists have not proven that these signals refer to anything concrete or abstract.

Conclusion: Scientists have not proven that animals posses language abilities.

The assumption must connect the ability to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas with language. C doesn't do this.

(I assume you meant (C)?)

This is a rough one, but the issue you're looking at is one of burden of proof --

The argument isn't trying to prove that it's not a language. The argument is merely trying to prove that the sounds and gestures don't prove that it's a language.

We don't necessarily need to assume that the signals aren't actually concrete objects or abstract ideas -- even if they were sometimes referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas, it wouldn't change the fact that the existence of signals doesn't prove that that they're referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

In other words, they might be referring to such ideas -- this doesn't change the fact that the sounds themselves don't necessarily prove that they are.