PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 16
Recent research shows that sound change (pronunciation shift)(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AThe data on(15 more words not shown)
- BThe emergence of(6 more words not shown)
- CThe meeting of(13 more words not shown)
- DAll theories of(8 more words not shown)
- EFor most languages,(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why throw out the whole field because one account is wrong?
The new research challenges the classical claim that pronunciation changes gradually. I would normally want to examine the evidence before deciding which account to accept. Here, though, the passage presents the research as showing that new sounds often emerge suddenly. Even accepting that finding, we still need to examine the larger conclusion.
Could sound-change theory be revised? Could another account explain sudden changes while retaining useful work on how pronunciation develops? The author moves from discarding the classical account to discarding sound-change theory in general. We haven't been told that the entire field stands or falls with this one account.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what would do the most to justify that conclusion. I'd look for a connection that makes the failed classical account central to the rest of the theory. More evidence that the old account is wrong would leave us asking why every other account must go with it.
Working the answers
- A
This gives us another reason to distrust the classical account. But that isn't enough to establish the broader conclusion. Other theories might use different data or explain the findings differently. A strengthens the case against the old account without connecting its failure to sound-change theory as a whole.
- B
Randomness is different from speed. A change could occur suddenly without being random, or unpredictably while taking time. More importantly, a random pattern would not by itself show that all theories of sound change must be discarded. A theory might account for that randomness.
- C
Contact between different cultures could affect pronunciation in unexpected ways. That might matter to an account of how sounds change, but it doesn't establish that the failure of the classical account defeats every other account. A theory that recognizes those interactions could remain useful.
- DCorrect
This connects the classical account to every other theory. If all of them rely heavily on it, its failure damages a foundation they share. We can no longer simply defend the rest of the field by saying this was just one independent account among others.
That dependence is why D does more than A. A attacks the classical theory's evidence; D tells us why that attack matters to the broader body of theory. The question asks for the most support, so we needn't claim that heavy reliance logically rules out every possible future revision.
- E
A lack of historical records could limit what researchers know, but uncertainty isn't proof that a whole field should be discarded. Researchers could still have evidence for some claims. E also doesn't connect the specific failure of the classical account to the validity of all other sound-change theories.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.