PrepTest 126, Section 1, Question 17
It is a mistake to conclude, as some(64 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ATo know the(10 more words not shown)
- BPeople who first(18 more words not shown)
- CThe name or(20 more words not shown)
- DA person who(26 more words not shown)
- EOne need not(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do you need a word for something before you can understand it?
A dog can recognize food without knowing our word for it. That makes me sympathetic to the author's objection: the absence of an expression for “a moral right” doesn't automatically show that ancient people lacked the concept.
The author uses a fruit-tree example. Someone discovers the tree, repeatedly harvests its fruit, and studies it. We're supposed to find it unreasonable to say this person has no idea what the fruit is until learning or inventing a name.
Still, a physical fruit and an abstract idea aren't identical. In the tree example, we have repeated harvesting and study. Do we have comparable evidence about ancient people's understanding of moral rights? I'd want to examine that connection before treating the comparison as decisive.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for something the argument requires. I'd look for support for the analogy: what must be true for the fruit-tree example to show that understanding needn't wait for a name? Keep our side clear. The author challenges an inference of ignorance; merely lacking a word isn't supposed to settle what someone knows.
Working the answers
- A
This says knowing a name is enough to know the thing. Our argument concerns whether a name is needed, which is different. I might know the name of an unfamiliar tree without understanding much about it. The author could accept that while still arguing that someone can understand a fruit without knowing its name.
- B
We don't need to compare discoverers' knowledge with anyone else's. Nor does the argument depend on this being the first person ever to discover the fruit. It only needs the person in the example to understand something about it without having a name.
- C
A name could provide useful information without being required for understanding. The author needn't say names tell us nothing. That would be a much stronger claim than the example supports or the argument needs.
- DCorrect
This supplies a needed part of the example itself: the person harvesting and studying the fruit has some idea of what it is before knowing a name. I initially questioned how well the example carries over to an abstract concept, but the example also needs to work on its own terms.
If this person had no understanding until learning a name, the comparison would do nothing to challenge the claim that a name is required. D gives the example the understanding-without-a-name that the author relies on.
- E
This says someone can name a thing without first understanding it. We need the other situation: understanding a thing without first knowing its name. Someone's ability to attach an unfamiliar label to an unfamiliar object doesn't establish the fruit-gatherer's knowledge before naming. The argument doesn't require E.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.