Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardAssumptions in Causal Arguments

Linguists analyzing the evolution of indigenous languages in the isolated Solenoid Archipelago observed that languages spoken by coastal fishing communities have an unusually high rate of phonetic simplification (the dropping of complex consonant clusters) compared to the languages of inland agricultural communities. The linguists also noted that when a massive seismic event forced several coastal communities to relocate inland a century ago, their languages quickly ceased undergoing phonetic simplification. The linguists hypothesize that the constant ambient noise of crashing ocean waves inherently degrades the oral transmission of complex phonetic structures, thereby causing these languages to simplify over time.

Which of the following are necessary assumptions upon which the linguists' hypothesis depends? Select all that apply.

  1. The cessation of phonetic simplification in the relocated coastal communities was not primarily caused by their adoption of the distinct, phonetically stable languages of pre-existing inland populations.Answer
  2. The ambient noise generated by crashing ocean waves is significant enough to interfere with the accurate auditory perception of complex consonant clusters during everyday speech.Answer
  3. C
    Phonetic simplification of complex consonant clusters does not occur in linguistic communities that are completely isolated from loud, constant environmental noises.
  4. D
    The coastal fishing communities and the inland agricultural communities originally descended from a single population speaking a common ancestral language.
  5. E
    The seismic event that triggered the inland relocation did not also drastically alter the fundamental grammatical syntax of the coastal communities' languages.

Answer

The argument requires assuming both that the relocated communities did not simply adopt a new language, and that wave noise is actually loud enough to disrupt speech perception.
The argument relies on two distinct types of necessary assumptions. First, it requires a 'Defender' assumption to rule out an alternative cause for the second premise: if the relocated communities simply assimilated and adopted the stable languages of the inland populations, the sudden absence of wave noise would not be the actual reason their phonetic simplification stopped. Second, it requires a 'Supporter' assumption to validate the proposed mechanism: for wave noise to 'inherently degrade' oral transmission, it must be loud enough to actually interfere with human auditory perception. Negating either of these statements completely severs the logical link between the premises and the hypothesis.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the causal argument structure.
Premises: Wave noise correlates with phonetic simplification; removing wave noise (moving inland) correlates with the cessation of simplification. Conclusion: Wave noise causes simplification by degrading oral transmission.
Identifying the proposed causal mechanism and the supporting evidence is the critical first step in finding structural gaps.
2
Identify potential gaps in the causal reasoning.
The argument assumes the mechanism is physically viable (the noise is loud enough) and rules out alternative reasons for the historical change (e.g., they stopped simplifying because they assimilated and learned a completely different, stable language).
Necessary causal assumptions generally either bridge a gap in the mechanism (Supporter) or proactively rule out alternative explanations/causes (Defender).
3
Apply the Negation Technique to verify necessary assumptions.
If the relocated communities DID primarily adopt established inland languages, the cessation of simplification wasn't due to the absence of waves. If wave noise is NOT loud enough to interfere with perception, the mechanism is impossible. Both negate the hypothesis.
The Negation Technique definitively proves an assumption is logically required for the conclusion to hold.

Key Concept

Assumptions in Causal Arguments (Supporter and Defender Roles)
Rate this question

Topics

Assumptions in Causal Arguments

More questions from this topic