Reading comp PrepTest 155 · Section 3 · Question 24

Passage Summary Topic:
Social Science

Passage A
Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author's criticism of Whorf's theory (language restricts thoughts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • There's no evidence for Whorf's outrageous claim that language restricts our thoughts (second and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "seduced" (first sentence); "impose" (second sentence); "never actually been any evidence" (last sentence); "fantastic claims" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author's argument (new research shows that language influences what we think about) and support (gender example)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • The main issue with Whorf's theory is the belief that language prevents certain thoughts (first sentence); research suggests that language just influences what we think about
  • Example of how language influences thought, according to the author:
    • German forces you to think about whether neighbors are male or female (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "main mistake" (first sentence); "suggests that in reality"

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's additional support (genders of objects influence how we think about the objects)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Gendered words for objects can cause us to develop different feelings about the object (first sentence)
  • Example of how gendered words influence thoughts, according to study:
    • Study on words where genders are different in German and Spanish (second through last sentence)
    • Words included bridges, clocks, violins, mountains, and chairs
  • Author's attitude: "can shape" (first sentence)

Passage B
Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Study of Piraha and Munduruku Indian subjects (don't have number words but seem to understand numbers)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The idea of "number words" and an "innate imprecise nonverbal concept of number" invokes the same central question as passage A — does language change how we think?
  • Author's attitude: "give evidence" (first sentence); "appear to indicate" (last setnence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Discuss a surface-level interpretation of the study, and a deeper one
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author brings Whorf is brought up, suggesting that on the surface, the study shows that language is independent of concepts (passage A would disagree that language and concepts are independent) (first sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the study:
    • People with exact number words value exact values (e.g., when doing basic addition and subtraction), while those without number words are indifferent to exact values (third through the fifth sentence)
  • List of potential conclusions from the study, according to the author:
    • Strong Whorfian, weak Whorfian, or non-Whorfian (last sentence()
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • The author also says the study's findings on exact numerical values could support the idea that language expands how we think about concepts (which the author of passage A discusses re: gender of bridges, etc.) or directs attention to certain concepts (which the author of passage A discusses re: gender of neighbors) (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "support" (first sentence); "there is more to the story" (second sentence); "suggest" (last sentence")

Main Points?
Passage A: Contrary to Whorf's hypothesis that language prevents us from having certain thoughts, language influences how we think about things.
Passage B: A study of innumerate peoples shows could support a variety of conclusions — from strong Whorfian to non-Whorfoian — about the relationship between language and thought.

Meta-Structure? Overall Relationship?
Relationship - Similar Viewpoints: Both passages discuss the connection between language and thought. The authors are at least somewhat aligned in their views. Both would agree that Whorf's theory isn't the end of the story when it comes to the relationship between language and thought. The author of passage A criticizes Whorf's theory for assuming that language prevents us from forming certain thoughts. And the author of passage B says that we can draw at least two non-Whorfian conclusions from a study.

Relationship - Different Scopes: The topic of passage A is also quite a bit broader in scope than the topic of passage B. Passage A addresses the relationship between language and thought in general. On the other hand, passage B discusses the conclusions about language and thought that can be drawn from one specific study. The type of language the passages describe is quite different as well. Passage A focuses on grammatically gendered words, while passage B hones in on numerical words. Because the scope and topics of these passages are slightly different, expect very few questions to ask us to compare the passages' details or the authors' views. Instead, most questions will likely ask about the general relationship between the two passages, or they'll ask about just one of the two passages. 

Last Thoughts?
Passage A is very strong in its negative opinion of Whorf's hypothesis, using language such as "seduced," "never actually been any evidence," and "main mistake." Nonetheless, the author believes there is a connection between language and thought — just not the one that Whorf put forward (forced thought vs. prevented thought).

Passage B brings up the hypothesis, but just to have a term to characterize conclusions that can be drawn from the study. At the end of the day, passage B believes that a "non-Whorfian hypothesis" is just as possible as a Whorfian one when describing the study's results.

These viewpoints are much more nuanced than just "Whorf good/bad," and so we should be wary of answers that are blunt in that respect.