Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaSynthesizing Evidence and Cross-Passage Claims

Passage A
For decades, a prominent school of evolutionary linguistics has maintained that human language capacity emerged rapidly through a single genetic mutation that enabled "Merge"—the cognitive operation allowing humans to combine concepts into recursive hierarchical structures. Proponents of this saltational model argue that recursive syntax is an all-or-nothing neurological property rather than a trait built incrementally by natural selection. According to this view, anatomical readiness, such as the lowering of the larynx, was a secondary adaptation. The primary evidence cited for this sudden appearance is the abrupt emergence of symbolic artifacts—such as engraved ochre blocks and personal ornaments—in the archaeological record of anatomically modern humans approximately 70,000 years ago. Proponents assert that because symbolic representation requires recursive mental capacity, the absence of widespread symbolic artifacts prior to this period demonstrates that true syntactic language did not exist in earlier hominin species.

Passage B
While symbolic artifacts offer compelling proof of abstract thought, relying exclusively on them to date the origin of language overlooks a crucial domain of material evidence: lithic technology. The production of Middle Paleolithic stone tools, particularly using the Levallois knapping technique starting around 300,000 years ago, required sequential planning, working memory, and hierarchical rule execution identical to the cognitive architecture underpinning syntax. Experimental neuroimaging of modern flintknappers reveals that crafting these complex tools activates the exact same frontoparietal brain networks employed during syntactic sentence processing. This neural overlap indicates that the capacity for hierarchical sequence processing co-evolved gradually with complex motor control and social transmission over hundreds of thousands of years. Consequently, treating language as a sudden, recent mutation ignores the deep evolutionary continuity of the cognitive prerequisites for syntax demonstrated by the prehistoric toolmaking record.

Based on both passages, how would the author of Passage B most likely characterize the claim in Passage A that the absence of symbolic artifacts before 70,000 years ago proves syntactic language had not yet emerged?

  1. As an incomplete assessment that mistakes a shift in cultural expression for the initial emergence of cognitive architecture.Cevap
  2. B
    As a flawed conclusion because stone tool production using the Levallois technique directly generated symbolic artifacts much earlier.
  3. C
    As an accurate observation that confirms the frontoparietal brain network developed exclusively in response to ornamental art.
  4. D
    As a valid premise that correctly identifies anatomical adaptations like larynx lowering as the true precursor to syntax.

Cevap

The author of Passage B would view Passage A's claim as an incomplete assessment that mistakes a shift in cultural expression for the initial emergence of cognitive architecture.
Passage A argues that language emerged suddenly 70,000 years ago, using symbolic artifacts as the sole indicator of recursive syntax. Passage B explicitly addresses this by asserting that while symbolic artifacts demonstrate abstract thought, relying exclusively on them ignores earlier stone tool technology (300,000 years ago) that required identical hierarchical cognitive architecture. Thus, the author of Passage B would view Passage A's focus on symbolic art as an incomplete perspective that confuses late-emerging symbolic expression with the much earlier origin of the neural capacity for syntax.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify Passage A's core claim regarding symbolic artifacts.
Passage A asserts that the sudden appearance of symbolic artifacts around 70,000 years ago marks the abrupt origin of recursive syntax and true language.
Establishing Passage A's evidence base is necessary to compare it with Passage B's counterargument.
2
Analyze Passage B's perspective on symbolic evidence versus cognitive infrastructure.
Passage B states that while symbolic artifacts prove abstract thought, relying solely on them overlooks lithic evidence from 300,000 years ago that proves the underlying neural/cognitive architecture for syntax existed much earlier.
Synthesizing cross-passage arguments requires evaluating how Passage B reframes the timeline presented in Passage A.
3
Synthesize the relationship between the two viewpoints.
Passage B contends that Passage A conflates the late appearance of symbolic cultural expression with the origin of cognitive syntax capacity, which had already evolved through toolmaking.
This direct comparison yields the correct synthesis answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Synthesizing cross-passage claims and evaluating opposing evidentiary arguments.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Synthesizing Evidence and Cross-Passage Claims

Bu konudan daha fazla soru