#16 - Recent research shows that sound change (pronunciation shift) in a language is not gradual.

[parytownson]

Hello Powerscore Team,

I have two questions:

1.) Why is this problem not categorized as "Justify the Conclusion?"

2.) Is this the proper way to diagram this problem:

Premise: Classical Account must be discarded (~CA)

Conclusion: Sound change theory in general should be discarded (~SC)

Answer choice (D): "If it is a theory of sound change, then it relies heavily on the classical account" (SC CA). If I then invoke the contraposition of this conditional (~CA ~ SC) then the argument's conclusion can be justified. [/list][/list]

[Robert Carroll]

pary,

As far as classification goes, this post by Dave explains why we call this a Strengthen: viewtopic.php?p=9480#p9480

"does most to justify" is the wording in this particular question that makes this less demanding than a Justify, thus only a Strengthen question.

The conditional diagramming works, although I don't think it's needed. But you're right - if all theories rely on the classical theory, and a central tenet of that must be discarded, than all the things that rely on the classical theory are in danger.

Robert Carroll

[lounalola]

I am a bit confused on this question. I picked answer choice A, and I am confused as to why it is wrong and why D is correct?

[Adam Tyson]

That's because A only impacts the classical theory, lounalola, and may not have any effect on sound-change theory more generally. We need to strengthen the claim that the whole general theory must be discarded, not just the classical theory (which seems to be a subset of the general theory).

The argument is, basically, "this part is bad, so the whole thing is bad." To strengthen that, we need something that says the whole thing depends on that one part in some way. Answer A tells us about the part, but not the whole, while answer D tells us exactly what we need it to say, that the whole thing relies on that one part.