Infants younger than six months who have normal hearing can readily distinguish between acoustically similar sounds that are used as part of any language-not only those used in the language spoken by the people who raise them. Young adults can readily distinguish between such sounds only in languages that they regularly use. It is known that the physiological capacity to hear begins to deteriorate after infancy. So the observed difference in the abilities of infants and young adult to distinguish between acoustically similar speech sounds must be the result of the physiological deterioration of hearing.
  The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
  (A) sets an arbitrary cutoff point of six months for the age below which infants are able to distinguish acoustically similar speech sounds
  (B) does not explain the procedures used to measure the abilities of two very different populations
  (C) ignores the fact that certain types of speech sounds occur in almost all languages
  (D) assumes that what is true of a group of people taken collectively is also true of any individual with that group
  (E) takes a factor that might contribute to an explanation of the observed difference as a sufficient explanation for that difference
The OA: E
LSAT: Infants and hearing
This topic has expert replies
You can get the correct answer by POE. However, I don't understand why the author is not allowed to believe that the factor he mentioned is the only factor (E)?
What I am concerned about is the wording of (E). If (E) provided an alternative explanation to the observed phenomena, then it would be clear. But (E) only states that he considers only one factor. So what? Why can't he consider only one factor?
What I am concerned about is the wording of (E). If (E) provided an alternative explanation to the observed phenomena, then it would be clear. But (E) only states that he considers only one factor. So what? Why can't he consider only one factor?
- tuanquang269
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
- Location: Vietnam
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:5 members
I think (E) is clear, if E provide an alternative explanation, this question will become the weaken one. But here is flaw in reasoning question. Choice (E) is clear when states that the author of argument assumed 2 phenomenon happen simultaneously will be the CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP. His reasoning is flaw.nonameee wrote:You can get the correct answer by POE. However, I don't understand why the author is not allowed to believe that the factor he mentioned is the only factor (E)?
What I am concerned about is the wording of (E). If (E) provided an alternative explanation to the observed phenomena, then it would be clear. But (E) only states that he considers only one factor. So what? Why can't he consider only one factor?
- David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
This question asks for a flaw in the reasoning of the argument.
Let's take an analogy.
If I were to say that most NBA players are over 6 ft 2 inches tall and that one factor that keeps people out of the NBA is their height. Could I then conclude that the only reason I am not in the NBA is my height (definitely under 6 ft 2)? There have been NBA players who are under 6 ft. So there must be another factor. Perhaps the fact that I am not nearly talented enough?
In this question we are told that the psychical capacity to hear begins to deteriorate immediately -- but is this the only factor that comes into play when "distinguishing between acoustically similar speech sounds"? No. The stimulus itself is the clue. It could be that when you speak a particular language you become very attune to the sounds made in that language or languages. So the brain is efficient, it does not continue to use capacity for things that are not actually required (like my ability to distinguish between sounds in Japanese).
Now how does the author take this factor as a "as a sufficient explanation for that difference"? Because he says that the inability to distinguish the sounds in languages not spoken "must be the result of the physiological deterioration of hearing."
hope it helps...
Let's take an analogy.
If I were to say that most NBA players are over 6 ft 2 inches tall and that one factor that keeps people out of the NBA is their height. Could I then conclude that the only reason I am not in the NBA is my height (definitely under 6 ft 2)? There have been NBA players who are under 6 ft. So there must be another factor. Perhaps the fact that I am not nearly talented enough?
In this question we are told that the psychical capacity to hear begins to deteriorate immediately -- but is this the only factor that comes into play when "distinguishing between acoustically similar speech sounds"? No. The stimulus itself is the clue. It could be that when you speak a particular language you become very attune to the sounds made in that language or languages. So the brain is efficient, it does not continue to use capacity for things that are not actually required (like my ability to distinguish between sounds in Japanese).
Now how does the author take this factor as a "as a sufficient explanation for that difference"? Because he says that the inability to distinguish the sounds in languages not spoken "must be the result of the physiological deterioration of hearing."
hope it helps...
Guys, thank you both for your inputs. However, can then please explain the difference between (E) in this question and (E) in the following question:
Without information that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written. No one witnessed the meeting, however, except the minister's aide. It is clear, therefore, that the finance minister was ultimately brought down, not by any of his powerful political enemies, but by his own trusted aide.
The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?
(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur without another thing's already having occurred, then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing
(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought about in that way
(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue
(E) treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect
To me, they look pretty much the same. Again, the question is from LSAT (Test #7, Section 2, Q19).
Without information that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written. No one witnessed the meeting, however, except the minister's aide. It is clear, therefore, that the finance minister was ultimately brought down, not by any of his powerful political enemies, but by his own trusted aide.
The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?
(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur without another thing's already having occurred, then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing
(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought about in that way
(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue
(E) treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect
To me, they look pretty much the same. Again, the question is from LSAT (Test #7, Section 2, Q19).
I guess I know why (E) in my second example is wrong.
The stimulus says: ...the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign...
(E) says: treating evidence that a given action (= publishing the story and eventually its disclosure by someone) contributed to bringing about a certain effect (= PM's resignation) as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect.
The last part is wrong because the stimulus clearly established that the publishing of the story was the reason that caused the PM's resignation. So the author had all the right to claim that the disclosure of the information was the ultimate cause of PM's downfall.
The stimulus says: ...the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign...
(E) says: treating evidence that a given action (= publishing the story and eventually its disclosure by someone) contributed to bringing about a certain effect (= PM's resignation) as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect.
The last part is wrong because the stimulus clearly established that the publishing of the story was the reason that caused the PM's resignation. So the author had all the right to claim that the disclosure of the information was the ultimate cause of PM's downfall.