Most children find it very difficult to explain exactly what the words they use mean when those words do not refer to...

Mehran August 21, 2018

Hi @smilde11, thanks for your post. This is a tricky question.

As always, start with the stimulus. Is this an argument, or a set of facts? It's an argument: the conclusion is "understanding what a word means clearly does not depend on being able to explain it." What premise/support is offered for this conclusion? "Since children are able to use words to convey the feelings and emotions they are obviously experiencing..."

This argument is weak: it jumps from ability to use a word to convey feelings/emotions experienced (the premise) to a conclusion about understanding the meaning of that word (conclusion).

You then have a Principle question in which you are asked to select, from the answer choices, a principle (a general rule) that would support the argument in the stimulus.

On questions like this, it can be helpful to try to focus very carefully on the "gap" identified in the reasoning in the stimulus. As noted above, the trouble with the argument in the stimulus is that it assumes that, if you are able to use a word correctly, you understand the meaning of that word. Of course, that is not necessarily the case: people use words all the time that they don't completely understand, but they are nevertheless able to correctly use those words because of context clues, etc.

Answer choice (D) provides a principle that bridges the gap in the stimulus. It says "When someone appropriately uses a word to convey something that he or she is experiencing, that person understands what that word means." This supports (strengthens) the argument in the stimulus.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.