PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 18
In many families adults speak to babies in(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ABabies pay no(9 more words not shown)
- BSpeaking to babies(8 more words not shown)
- CAny child who(12 more words not shown)
- DMany linguists believe(12 more words not shown)
- ETo learn a(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is learning grammar the same as learning a language?
The simple phrases don't seem pointless at first. Breaking something into small pieces can help a learner get started before putting the pieces together. “Nice kitty” could help a child connect a word with an animal even though it isn't a complete sentence.
The author challenges that benefit with a comparison: children whose families don't use simplified language master grammatical structure just as well and just as quickly. Let's accept that. What about vocabulary? The children who hear the simple phrases might learn more words, even if the two groups learn grammar at the same rate. That would leave room for a benefit the comparison hasn't measured.
What we’re looking for
We are asked for an assumption the argument needs. The evidence concerns grammar, while the conclusion concerns learning the language. The argument needs to treat mastery of grammatical structure as enough to count as learning the language. Otherwise, an equal result on grammar doesn't settle whether simplified speech gives extra help with some other part of learning.
Working the answers
- A
Babies could pay extra attention to simplified phrases without getting an extra language-learning benefit from them. Attention and learning aren't the same outcome. The conclusion doesn't require babies to find the phrases uninteresting; it requires a basis for denying the claimed learning advantage.
- B
Failing to help isn't the same as causing harm. Simplified speech could make no difference at all, and the author's conclusion would still hold. B adds the possibility of impaired learning, which isn't needed to argue that there is no extra benefit.
- CCorrect
This connects the measured achievement to the broader outcome: a child who has mastered grammatical structure has learned the language. The author can then treat the equal mastery of grammar as evidence of equal success at learning the language.
Mastering grammar is being treated as the point at which the language has been learned. Without that bridge, the vocabulary objection remains: one group could learn grammar equally well while receiving extra help with another part of the language.
- D
The argument doesn't depend on what many linguists believe. It offers a comparison of children's learning as its evidence. That comparison would need the same grammar-to-language connection whether many experts favored simplified speech or no experts did.
- E
This expresses the concern we raised: learning language involves vocabulary as well as grammar. But we're looking for something the argument depends on, not a statement supporting an objection to it. A separate vocabulary requirement would make us ask whether the comparison of grammar alone leaves an important benefit unmeasured.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.