PrepTest 110

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require that animals lack the ability to have abstract ideas, just that it can't be proven their signals (sounds/gestures) refer to them.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), entertaining abstract ideas is out of scope—it's about the ability to communicate them. Also, this is a reversal of an answer we'd look for since it establishes a sufficient condition for something to be a language (take the contrapositive of this answer to see), whereas the argument concludes that animals don't have language (or, at least, we can't prove that they do).

Incorrect. The argument only relies on animals not provably referring to objects/ideas, not that they actually aren't. Even with that out of the way, this answer doesn't connect to language at all, and language is key to the assumption.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Using sounds/gestures as signals doesn't prove that animals are referring to objects/ideas, so it doesn't prove animals have language.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently introduce a new concept in the conclusion. When it does, it's usually treating a premise that establishes a similar/related concept as being sufficient to establish the new concept, without ever connecting the two. When you see a new term in the conclusion, look to see what similar concept is brought up in the premises, and the answer is likely to connect those ideas.

Here, the new concept in the conclusion is language—it can't be proven that animals have language. Looking at the premises, we can identify the concept that the author clearly believes supports this both logically and structurally. Logically, the idea of referring to objects/ideas is related to language, though it's not established that language requires doing this. Structurally, the premise establishes that animals gesture without necessarily referring to objects/ideas, which matches the conclusion that it's not proven that animals use language.

So the answer needs to connect these concepts—language requires referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the criteria established in the premises do allow a conclusion about language to be drawn. If failing to refer to objects/ideas doesn't preclude something from being a language, then the argument falls apart, as the premises don't relate to the conclusion. Since this connection is required for the argument to work, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently introduce a new concept in the conclusion. When it does, it's usually treating a premise that establishes a similar/related concept as being sufficient to establish the new concept, without ever connecting the two. When you see a new term in the conclusion, look to see what similar concept is brought up in the premises, and the answer is likely to connect those ideas.

Incorrect. The argument relies on lacking this ability guarantees an animal doesn't have language; this is the negation of that assumption.