English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram

[ska7945]

English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both use the word “dog” for canines. These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word “dog” was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing.

The argument requires that which one of the following be assumes?

(A) English and Mbarbaram share no words other than “dog.”
(B) Several languages besides English and Mbarbaram use “dog” as the word for canines.
(C) Usually when two languages share a word, those languages are related to each other.
(D) There is no third language from which both English and Mbarbaram borrowed the word “dog.”
(E) If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages must have come in contact with one another at some time.

[ska7945]

i had c but oa shows D.
how can we reject c and accept oa for answer?
i thought c was pretty close.

[aj5105]

Is it A?

[stop@800]

The conclusion is

sometimes
Languages that shared words [same sound + meaning] it is not due to relatedness or borrowing.

for assumption
we need to find something that help us reach the conclusion

so D is clearly the missing link

For C
it defines related languages
but we do not have any reference for related languages nor do we need
also
language can also be related if speaker of one passes some information to designer of another [this is indirectly said also]
or xyz reasons

Hope it helps

[ska7945]

thanks stop@800

[peter.p.81]

I'm pretty confident that A is correct answer.