PT 59 Section 3 (LR) Question 19 Forum

[leche]

Inference question trouble. Not quite sure how to post this without writing it word for word and infringing on some copyright law...it's the one about understanding words/knowing dictionary definitions/understanding the words in dictionary definitions.

I diagrammed:
Understanding word --> knowing dictionary def. + understanding words in dictionary def. (UW --> KDD + UWDD)

I answered A: Some babies utter individual words that they do not understand. (I got this via the contrapositive: -KDD --> -UW)

I understand why E is correct (I think) but I don't get why A is wrong. I think it has something to do with the some/most/all's but I can't quite articulate it on paper.

[leche]

Come on, I know you all have the latest 10 book. Just crack it open for me. Please.

[secretad]

Here is how I looked at it.

I would diagram it like this:

(Understanding a word ---> Knowing its Dict. Def.) -----> (Understanding a word ---> Understanding the words in that definition)

You really have two conditional statements forming one conditional statement.

The last line of the stimulus is that all babies do not know the dictionary definitions of some words they utter.



Now, in terms of what we can deduce. We cannot deduce anything about the babies for 100% certainty. Remember, the conditional statements above are in fact, IF, and we do not know if it is the case that the conditions hold true.

So that means we cannot infer or logically conclude anything about those babies other than what is explicitly stated about them. Notice that in the correct answer choice (E), we have babies being used in the conditional sense which allows us to put those conditional statements at the top into play in this question.

So, how to get rid of A, is that we do not know for certain whether babies utter individual words that they do not understand. This is because we have nothing to trigger the conditional statements.

[leche]

I had to study your reply for quite a while, but I think I get it now. Thank you. Your diagram makes much more sense, and I finally understand what you're saying about what we can deduce from a bunch of conditionals.