PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 2
Anderson: Taking the long view, history shows that(66 more words not shown)
The dialogue provides the most(11 more words not shown)
- Agrammar violations should(2 more words not shown)
- Ba language can(6 more words not shown)
- Cusers of a(9 more words not shown)
- Dpeople only rarely(3 more words not shown)
- Elanguages evolve through(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A rule can change later and still matter now.
Anderson's historical observation makes sense: word usage and grammar evolve. But why should that mean we stop caring about violations of the rules currently in use? The fact that a standard won't last forever doesn't, by itself, tell us to disregard it today.
What we’re looking for
Lipton tests that reasoning with laws. Laws change too, and nations don't last forever. Would that alone justify giving up on enforcement? Lipton says enforcement is nevertheless good. For their disagreement, then, look at whether violations of today's grammar rules should concern us. Lipton can accept that language changes while opposing Anderson's recommendation.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Whether grammar violations should be resisted captures their disagreement. Anderson's recommendation is to stop worrying about them because the rules will change anyway. Lipton argues that change isn't a good reason to abandon enforcement, using laws as the comparison. The response supports resistance to violations rather than Anderson's indifference.
- B
Anderson explicitly allows a language to develop into a new one. Lipton doesn't challenge that historical possibility. The objection concerns what follows for enforcing present rules, not whether language can change that much.
- C
Neither speaker tells us how easily people adapt. Language could change smoothly or leave users struggling to keep up, and we would still have the dispute about whether violations should concern us. C adds a practical question the dialogue doesn't resolve.
- D
How often people violate grammar rules is different from whether those violations should be resisted. The speakers give no estimate of their frequency. We can't create a disagreement over rarity from an argument about what to do when violations occur.
- E
Anderson describes changes in usage and rules as the way language evolves. Lipton's law analogy doesn't deny that process; it challenges using ongoing change as a reason to disregard current standards. We have no opposed positions on E.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.