Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorNecessary Assumption

Cognitive Linguist: Syntactic bootstrapping theory proposes that children use the syntactic structure of a sentence to deduce the meaning of novel verbs. Our recent experiments show that toddlers exposed to novel verbs in transitive sentence frames ("She is blicking the ball") reliably associate the verb with causative actions, whereas those exposed to the same verbs in intransitive frames ("The ball is blicking") associate them with non-causative actions. Therefore, a child's innate capacity to distinguish between transitive and intransitive syntax is the primary mechanism driving early verb comprehension.

Which of the following are assumptions on which the linguist's argument depends? Select all that apply.

  1. Broadly categorizing an action as causative or non-causative constitutes a meaningful instance of early verb comprehension.Cevap
  2. B
    Any child who possesses the capacity to distinguish between transitive and intransitive syntax will successfully deduce the precise meaning of newly encountered verbs.
  3. The toddlers' ability to differentiate between the transitive and intransitive frames in the experiment was not entirely acquired through their prior exposure to language.Cevap
  4. D
    Syntactic bootstrapping is the only cognitive mechanism that toddlers utilize when attempting to decipher the meanings of novel words.
  5. E
    Toddlers do not occasionally rely on non-linguistic cues, such as the experimenter's gestures, to interpret a novel verb.

Cevap

The argument fundamentally requires two unstated assumptions: that the categorizations observed in the experiment actually count as verb comprehension, and that the capacity driving this behavior is not entirely learned.
The argument requires two distinct assumptions to bridge logical gaps between the evidence and the conclusion. First, the conclusion relies on the concept of an 'innate capacity.' For this to hold, the ability demonstrated by the toddlers cannot be entirely acquired through experience; if it were completely learned, the conclusion that it is innate would collapse. Second, the premise provides evidence about toddlers associating verbs with broad action categories (causative versus non-causative), while the conclusion elevates this to 'early verb comprehension.' If this broad categorization does not legitimately constitute a part of verb comprehension, then the experiment is entirely irrelevant to the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conclusion to identify its core claims and scope.
The conclusion claims an 'innate capacity' to distinguish syntax is the 'primary mechanism' driving 'early verb comprehension.'
Identifying the exact wording of the conclusion highlights potential leaps in logic from the premises.
2
Analyze the premises and compare them to the conclusion to find logical gaps.
Gap 1: The premise is about toddlers 'associating verbs with causative/non-causative actions', but the conclusion is about 'early verb comprehension'. Gap 2: The premise observes a 'capacity to distinguish', but the conclusion assumes this capacity is 'innate'.
Necessary assumptions almost always act as bridges for these exact shifts in language and scope.
3
Evaluate the options using the logical Negation Test.
Negating the correct answers destroys the argument. If the capacity is entirely learned, it is not 'innate'. If associating an action with a category isn't 'verb comprehension', the experiment proves nothing about the conclusion.
The Negation Test is the definitive proof of a necessary assumption.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Multiple Concept Shifts (Necessary Assumption)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Necessary Assumption

Bu konudan daha fazla soru