34 LR Two Question 17
- « 34 LR Two Question 16
- 342 of 3815
- 34 LR Two Question 18 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
Yeah, I can see that. Problem is that the claim of the argument is too small to need (C).
Here, we're making two claims:
1. That the fact they use sounds does not prove that they are referring to objects, and;
2. That because we don't know whether they're referring to objects, we don't know whether they have language.
Obviously (C) is dealing only with claim 1.
But to say that Thing A doesn't prove Thing B, it isn't necessary to assume that Thing A is not Thing B.
For example, I can say that my wife giving me a high-five doesn't prove that she loves me (because lots of people give me high-fives, even though they don't love me [WHY THOUGH? I'M SO LOVABLE!]).
But saying that does not require me to assume that when my wife gives me a high-five, she doesn't love me.
Same thing here.
I chose E here. Using the negate test, I got "no animals that possess a language can refer to abstract or concrete."
Wouldn't that destroy the argument that in order to prove they have the language they need to be able to refer to abstract or concrete? Thanks!
Well, we're trying to show that their system of signals doesn't prove they have language, because those symbols don't prove they can refer to objects or ideas.
So if no animals with language can refer to objects or ideas, then it's still the case that showing they have a system of symbols doesn't prove that they have language.
Contrast that with the negation of (D): if the systemof sounds is a language even if it doesn't identify objects or ideas, then this argument is stupid; their system of sounds is a language!