#15 - Linguist: You philosophers say that we linguists do

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this dialogue, the philosopher attempts to show why linguists do not have a deep understanding of language. As evidence, he points to two sentences that are physically different but identical in meaning. The philosopher’s argument has the following structure:

• Sentence A = Joan and Ivan are siblings
  Sentence B = Ivan and Joan are siblings
  
  Premise (1): Sentences A and B are physically different.
  
  Premise (2): For two things to be identical, they must have all the same attributes.
  
  Conclusion: Sentences A and B are not identical in meaning.

The philosopher’s argument is severely flawed, making the linguist’s job relatively easy. One cannot prove that two sentences have different meanings just because they are physically different from each other. This is a classic error of equivocation, where the philosopher uses the term “identical” in two different senses: physically identical and identical in meaning. To weaken his argument, the linguist could point out that the physical difference between the two sentences has no bearing on the question of whether or not they mean the same thing. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (D).

Answer choice (A): The linguist need not prove that the sentences are completely identical, only that they are identical in meaning.

Answer choice (B): The fact that two sentences can be physically identical but mean different things has no bearing on the question of whether they can be physically different but mean the same thing.

Answer choice (C): While it is true that Joan is Ivan’s sibling if Ivan is Joan’s sibling, the point at issue has little to do with what a “sibling” is.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the two sentences do not need to be completely identical in order to mean the same thing, the philosopher’s argument is seriously weakened. This exposes the main flaw in his argument, and validates the linguist’s claim that the sentences are identical in meaning.

Answer choice (E): The linguist cannot counter the philosopher’s argument by pointing to his own experience or expertise. This would be an “appeal fallacy,” where the author invokes his own position of authority to persuade the reader. Such arguments are always inherently weak, and would not provide a strong logical counter.

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore Staff,

I struggled with a prephrase on this. I read it, and thought "obviously not, two sentences can be identically written but not identical in meaning," which was answer choice B. But that was wrong. This is a flaw I haven't seen before.

How should I go about answering this?

[Adam Tyson]

First off, Deck, this is a Weaken question, not a Flaw question. We want to "counter" (weaken, attack, undermine, challenge) the argument made by the philosopher. That argument is that because the two sentences are not completely identical, they cannot have the same meaning. To weaken that, you should prephrase that two sentences that are not identical CAN have the same meaning, as that would directly counter what the philosopher said.

It looks like you got yourself a little scrambled up in the prephrasing stage, and that tripped you up and unfortunately landed you right in the middle of a trap answer choice, a shell game. The philosopher isn't arguing that identical sentences cannot have different meanings, but that different sentences cannot have identical meanings. Once you get that straightened out, and recognize that it is that argument that you are meant to weaken, you'll have no problem selecting the right answer, I expect.

[blade21cn]

What is the best/easiest rationale to eliminate (C)? I didn't read it as to focus on the definition of "sibling." I thought this answer choice is saying that "Joan is Ivan's sibling" and "Ivan is Joan's sibling" is identical in meaning. Broadly speaking, I thought the philosopher is not really challenging the linguist's claim. The linguist's claim is that "Joan and Ivan are siblings" and "Ivan and Joan are siblings" are identical in meaning, but the philosopher's counter is that these two sentences are physically different. Apparently, they were talking about different things - meaning v. physical appearance. Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi blade21cn!

Answer choice (C) would not effectively counter the philosopher's argument because the philosopher is not arguing that two such sentences do not mean the same thing. He is arguing that two such sentences would not be completely identical because they have physically different attributes. In other words, it doesn't matter that if you are someone's sibling then that person is also your sibling (which gets to the definition of "sibling").

Answer choice (D) is the answer that talks about meaning vs. physical appearance (being completely identical) and, thus, is the correct answer.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey