PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 19
If understanding a word always involves knowing its(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ASome babies utter(7 more words not shown)
- BAny number of(10 more words not shown)
- CIf some words(13 more words not shown)
- DIf it is(25 more words not shown)
- EIf some babies(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The opening sentence starts with “if.” It does not establish that understanding always requires a dictionary definition. It tells us what would follow if that requirement held: understanding a word would require understanding the words in its definition.
That raises an interesting question about how understanding gets started. If you need other words to understand each definition, how do you learn the first ones? But the passage hasn't yet settled whether the proposed requirement is true.
Then we learn that babies utter some words whose dictionary definitions they don't know. Be careful: uttering a word and understanding it are different. I could repeat a Spanish phrase without knowing what it means. A baby might repeat a parent's exclamation after hearing it, without understanding it either.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what follows logically. We can't simply assume that those babies understand the words, and we can't assume they don't. We have to work with the stated lack of definitions and check each answer against those limits.
Working the answers
- A
Not knowing a definition would establish a lack of understanding only if knowing a definition were required. The first sentence considers that requirement conditionally; it doesn't establish it. Babies could utter words without understanding them, but this answer doesn't have to follow from what we're told.
- B
We are told that babies utter words without knowing some definitions, not that they understand those words. B adds the understanding we lack. The passage therefore does not establish its claim about people understanding words without knowing their definitions.
- C
Understanding without definitions might be possible for some adults without establishing anything about babies. C's starting condition doesn't tell us that babies have that ability or actually understand any words. The move to babies is unsupported.
- D
Not needing a dictionary definition doesn't mean not needing any other words. A person might learn a word through a spoken explanation or context involving other words without knowing its dictionary entry. Removing the dictionary requirement doesn't remove every possible dependence on other language.
- ECorrect
Suppose some babies understand all the words they utter. We also know that babies lack dictionary definitions for some of those words. Those babies would therefore understand at least some words without knowing their dictionary definitions.
That would be enough to disprove the claim that understanding always involves knowing the definition. E doesn't assert that babies actually understand everything they say. It tells us what would follow if some did, which is exactly the conditional conclusion the facts support.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.