Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardStrengthen

Consider the following argument:

Linguist: Because the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language lacks a common root word for 'sea' or 'ocean', many scholars have concluded that the original PIE speakers inhabited a completely landlocked region. However, this conclusion is premature. The PIE vocabulary includes several deeply entrenched roots for terms such as 'ship', 'rowing', and 'mast'. Since a culture would not develop a complex maritime vocabulary unless they lived near a large, navigable body of water, the PIE speakers must have originally inhabited a coastal region.

Evaluate the following assertion:

The statement 'Linguistic studies demonstrate that while early coastal populations shared a common terminology for man-made maritime tools, they almost universally utilized highly localized, non-transferable idioms to refer to the ocean itself' significantly strengthens the linguist's argument.

Answer: Answer

Answer

The assertion is true; the supplementary statement acts as a powerful strengthener for the linguist's argument.
The correct answer is True. The supplementary statement acts as a powerful 'Defender' by explaining away the very evidence the opposing scholars used to argue PIE speakers were landlocked (the lack of a word for 'sea'). By demonstrating that actual coastal populations historically exhibited this exact linguistic paradox—sharing terms for man-made maritime tools but utilizing non-transferable idioms for the ocean itself—the statement perfectly aligns the PIE evidence with the linguist's coastal conclusion, eliminating both the scholars' objection and the alternate 'river/lake' hypothesis.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the linguist's argument.
Premises: PIE has words for ships/masts but lacks a word for sea/ocean. Conclusion: PIE speakers lived in a coastal region. Counter-argument addressed: Critics say no word for 'sea' means they were landlocked.
Identifying the premises, conclusion, and the opposing view is essential to pinpointing the logical vulnerabilities of the argument.
2
Identify the logical gaps and opposing evidence.
Gap 1: 'Navigable water' could mean a large river or lake, not necessarily a coast. Gap 2: The opposing scholars use the lack of an 'ocean' word as direct evidence against the coastal hypothesis, which the linguist dismisses without entirely explaining.
Strengthening statements typically bridge logical leaps or neutralize counter-evidence.
3
Evaluate the effect of the supplementary statement.
The statement reveals that the exact linguistic idiosyncrasy of PIE (having tool words but no shared ocean word) is a definitive, documented trait of early coastal populations.
To determine if the statement strengthens, we must see how it interacts with the identified gaps.
4
Determine the impact on the conclusion.
By neutralizing the critics' evidence (explaining why a coastal group would paradoxically lack a word for ocean) and linking the maritime tool vocabulary directly to coastal populations, the statement strongly supports the linguist's conclusion.
Confirming that the statement achieves the precise goal of a strengthen question.

Key Concept

Strengthening by Neutralizing Counter-Evidence (Defender) and Bridging Concept Gaps
Rate this question

Topics

Strengthen

More questions from this topic