Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumMethod of Reasoning

Linguist: Some structural grammarians argue that human linguistic syntax is determined strictly by innate neurological architecture rather than communicative function, citing evidence that several complex grammatical conventions do not enhance communicative efficiency. However, this conclusion is unearned. In traditional timber framing, master carpenters developed complex joining techniques that exceed what is strictly necessary for basic structural support, yet these designs emerged entirely in response to practical architectural demands over centuries of building. Thus, the observation that certain syntactic rules appear inefficient does not demonstrate that syntax evolved independently of functional communicative needs.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed in the linguist's argument?

  1. A
    Directly challenging the empirical accuracy of the opponents' premise that certain syntactic rules lack communicative efficiency
  2. B
    Arguing that because practical utility produces complex structures, all complex structural systems must have functional origins
  3. Employing an analogy from another craft to illustrate that non-optimal complexity is compatible with a functional originAnswer
  4. D
    Demonstrating that the opponents' underlying assumptions lead to an inherently self-contradictory conclusion
  5. E
    Claiming that syntax and timber framing develop through identical historical and physical mechanisms

Answer

Employing an analogy from another craft to illustrate that non-optimal complexity is compatible with a functional origin
The linguist responds to the grammarians' claim by comparing linguistic rules to traditional timber framing joints. By pointing out that timber joints are more elaborate than strictly necessary yet still originated to serve functional needs, the linguist shows that an apparent lack of strict efficiency does not establish a non-functional origin. Therefore, the argument proceeds by using an analogy to undermine the inferential leap made by the opponents.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opponent's position and evidence
Opponents claim syntax is non-functional because certain grammatical rules do not maximize communicative efficiency.
Understanding the opposing inference is necessary to see how the author targets it.
2
Identify the author's counter-strategy
The author introduces the domain of traditional timber framing, where structural joints are more elaborate than strictly necessary yet still functional in origin.
Recognizing the parallel domain identifies the technique as analogical reasoning.
3
Determine the structural role of the analogy
The timber framing example demonstrates that non-optimal complexity can still originate from practical demands, thus invalidating the opponents' leap from inefficiency to non-functionality.
Matching the concrete analogy to its abstract logical function isolates the correct description.

Key Concept

Method of Reasoning via Analogy
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic