The author says that languages that can distinguish between things such as one's maternal and paternal uncles (rather than just saying "uncle") have a more finely discriminated kinship system. The author then brings up colors, stating that for languages in which there are more words for colors, speakers of those languages can more finely distinguish colors.
We're looking to weaken the argument. With this argument, it's failing to consider that speakers of languages like English can use adjectives to add specificity to words like "uncle" and "blue" to convey more information. "Maternal uncle" and "light blue" provide more information and can help these speakers differentiate between types of uncles and blues even if there aren't specific words for these things.
(A) says, "Speakers of English are able to distinguish between lighter and darker shades of the color they call "blue," for which Russian has two different basic words."
The argument is assuming that if the speaker of a language doesn't have two different names for a color (such as for shades of red or blue), then it's not possible to differentiate between these colors. This isn't a good assumption, and (A) shows this. As our analysis demonstrates, it's possible to differentiate between two things even without each of those things having distinct names, so (A) is the correct answer choice, as it would weaken the argument.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
Samir-GhaniAugust 1, 2019
would you be able to explain the remaining answer choices as well please?
RaviAugust 12, 2019
@Samir-Ghani,
Definitely.
(B) says, "Almost every language distinguishes red from the other colors"
It's true that red is different from yellow or blue, but what about various shades of red (crimson, maroon, scarlet, burgundy, etc.)? (B) does not address the degrees of distinctions within a specific color, which is the whole point of the argument in the stimulus, so (B) is out.
(C) says, "Khmer uses a basic word corresponding to English "blue" for most leaves, but uses its basic word corresponding to English "green" for unripe bananas"
The problem with (C) is that it just means that people perceive certain things differently, not more finely or with more granularity. Thus, it's out.
(D) says, "The word "orange" in English has the same origin as the equivalent word in Spanish."
The problem with (D) is that it gives us no information regarding how speakers of various languages compare to one another in terms of how many different colors they can distinguish from each other. (D) is out of scope, so it's out.
(E) says, "Most languages do not have a basic word that distinguishes gray from other colors, although gray is commonly found in nature."
(E) strengthens the argument in the stimulus by implying that there might be less of a distinction between colors in other language speakers. Thus, (E) is out.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
