Recent research shows that sound

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Impact23% picked this

   The data on which the classical account of sound-change theory was based are now known

   This just drives the nail further into the coffin of the classical account, but we're already pretty convinced that classical account is dead. The open question is whether its death means that we also need to get rid of sound-change theory in general.

   23%
2. B

   Unclear Impact4% picked this

   The emergence of new sounds appears to

   We weren't really ever discussing whether the emergence of new sounds was random vs. planned / coordinated. We were just talking about whether the emergence was sudden or gradual. There's no common-sense link from "random vs. planned" to "sudden vs. gradual". Both random and non-random things can happen suddenly or gradually. Since we have no idea how sound-change theory in general feels about random or non-random emergence of sounds, we have no way of knowing how this answer impacts sound change theory in general.

   4%
3. C

   No Impact1% picked this

   The meeting of linguistically disparate cultures can affect the sound of their languages

   This has super weak wording: X can affect Y. Weak language is always a red flag on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, and Sufficient Assumption. This answer does nothing to convince us that we should get rid of sound-change theory in general.

   1%
4. D

   Correct71% picked this

   All theories of sound change rely heavily on the

   Why this is right

   This strengthens the connection between "we're discarding the classical account" and "we might as well discard sound change theory in general". As we considered in our anticipatory thinking, one might have been tempted to object, "Why do we have to discard both? Can't we just get rid of classical theory without also getting rid of sound change theory in general?" This answer rules out that objection (thus strengthening) by saying, "No you can't really keep any other sound-change theories if you're getting rid of classical, because they all rely heavily on classical."

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
5. E

   No Impact1% picked this

   For most languages, historical records of their earlier stages are scarce

   This doesn't seem to connect to anything. We were never talking about whether we did or didn't have record of the earliest stages of languages. Also, there's no common-sense link that says, "If you have a lack of data in a certain field, then you should discard theories." Like if we have very few fossils for dinosaur X, does that mean we should discard our theories about dinosaur X? No, it just means we don't have much evidence to support them. We need evidence against a theory to motivate discarding the theory. A lack of evidence doesn't show that a theory is right or wrong. It just shows nothing.

   1%