LSAT Explanation PT 29, S1, Q16: We can learn about the living

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument presented in the passage. The argument claims that we can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. It then uses the example of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, stating that since it lacks a word for "sea" and contains words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf," the people who spoke PIE likely lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea.

In this argument, the premise is the information about the PIE language (lacking a word for "sea" and containing words for "winter," "snow," and "wolf"), and the conclusion is that the people who spoke PIE lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea.

The question type is a Weaken question, which asks us to find the answer choice that most seriously weakens the argument.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there a direct relationship between the presence or absence of certain words in a language and the living conditions of the people who spoke that language?"

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

a) A word meaning "fish" was used by the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European.

This answer choice might seem tempting because it suggests that the PIE people might have had some connection to water sources, possibly weakening the argument. However, fish can also be found in lakes and rivers, not just oceans or seas. So, this answer choice does not necessarily weaken the argument.

b) Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.

This is the correct answer. It weakens the argument by suggesting that the absence of a word for "sea" in PIE might not be a reliable indicator that the PIE speakers were isolated from the ocean or sea. If some languages lack words for prominent elements of their speakers' environments, then the argument's conclusion is less certain.

c) There are no known languages today that lack a word for "sea."

This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument, as it does not address the relationship between the PIE language and the living conditions of its speakers.

d) Proto-Indo-European possesses words for "heat."

This answer choice might seem tempting, as it could suggest that the PIE people might have experienced warmer conditions. However, the presence of words for "heat" does not necessarily contradict the argument, as heat can be experienced in various forms and contexts, even in cold climates. This answer choice does not directly weaken the argument.

e) The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were nomadic.

This answer choice does not address the conclusion that the PIE people lived in a cold climate, isolated from the ocean or sea. Being nomadic does not necessarily weaken the argument, as the PIE people could still have lived in a cold climate and been isolated from the ocean or sea while migrating.

In summary, the correct answer is B, as it weakens the argument by suggesting that the absence of a word for "sea" in the PIE language might not be a reliable indicator of the living conditions of its speakers.