PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 19
Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native(91 more words not shown)
Their statements commit Professors Beckstein(10 more words not shown)
- Awhether American Sign(12 more words not shown)
- Bwhether any North(25 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the university(7 more words not shown)
- Dwhether any other(18 more words not shown)
- Ewhether the fact(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
French and Spanish can be native languages of North Americans too. Would Beckstein's rule exclude those languages as well?
The premise about American Sign Language can stand. Learning or reading another language wouldn't stop a language from being someone's native language. The question is whether having native speakers in North America is enough to disqualify a language from this university requirement.
I'd also want to know the requirement's purpose. Is it about where a language comes from, or about students learning an additional language? We aren't told the policy's intended purpose. Sedley instead takes up the first concern: apply Beckstein's reason to French and Spanish, and it would disqualify those too. Sedley regards that result as unacceptable.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement, I'd look for the criterion itself. Beckstein says being native to many North Americans is enough reason for exclusion. Sedley challenges that reason by showing what else it would exclude.
Working the answers
- A
Sedley doesn't dispute that American Sign Language is native to many North Americans. The response adds that French and Spanish share that feature. Accepting the feature while challenging its significance isn't a disagreement about whether the feature exists.
- B
This asks whether a student may fulfill the requirement with that student's own native language. The exchange concerns whether an entire language should be excluded because it is native to many people in North America. Neither speaker addresses this separate question about an individual student's existing language background.
- C
Neither professor proposes eliminating the foreign-language requirement. They are discussing which languages may count toward it. A disagreement about how a requirement is fulfilled doesn't establish disagreement about whether to retain it.
- D
Other universities' policies aren't discussed. They could allow American Sign Language or exclude it, and we still wouldn't have a stated difference between these professors about that fact. The argument concerns the reason for a rule at their university.
- ECorrect
This states the criterion Beckstein uses and Sedley rejects. Beckstein treats the existence of many North American native speakers as sufficient reason to prohibit using the language to satisfy the requirement. Sedley says applying that same reason would also exclude French and Spanish, an outcome Sedley rejects.
The dispute therefore isn't settled by counting native speakers. It concerns what that fact justifies. We don't have to infer that Sedley has considered every possible reason for allowing or excluding American Sign Language; rejecting this reason is enough to establish E.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.