PrepTest 139

Incorrect. That's just not true—identical means exactly alike.

Incorrect. This is the opposite of what the Linguist would have to bring up as a response. To show that this example doesn't prove that Linguists are wrong, she'd have to bring up that two things can be physically different but meaningfully identical.

Incorrect. This might address logic and meaning, but it doesn't address the Philosopher's claim that the Linguist is treating two things as identical that aren't.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
L: You say we don't understand language, but you have no proof (so you're wrong).

P: Example - You say these two phrases have the same meaning, but they are physically different so they can't be the same.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever there are two speakers—and especially when the second speaker uses an example—it's important to see if that speaker/the example actually counters what is said by the initial speaker.

Here, the Philosopher is challenged to provide evidence that linguists don't have a deep understanding of language. The Philosopher attempts to provide such evidence by bringing up an example of Linguists not understanding language.

That example is of two sentences that have words in a different order, but that the Linguists say are "identical in meaning". The Philosopher highlights that these two sentences can't be "identical" because they're different.

That's a shift, however. There's a difference between claiming two sentences are identical, and that they're identical in meaning. Because the Philosopher uses this key phrase in two different ways, the Linguist can counter its use as evidence by pointing this shift out.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the shift in the Philosopher's argument, from what Linguist's claim ("These two sentences mean the same thing") to what the Philosopher argues is wrong about it ("The sentences are physically different and thus not identical"). Both could be true, so the Philosopher's example doesn't prove what he's attempting to with it.

Key Takeaway:
When an example is offered to prove or disprove a point, make sure that it addresses that point! It'll frequently miss the mark in some way, and knowing how it misses the mark will lead you to the correct answer.

Incorrect. This would be an inappropriate appeal to authority since this would remove the ability to criticize linguists on language. Philosophers get pretty in the weeds on language and meaning, as well!