Native speakers perceive sentences of

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: impossible Contradicted3% picked this

   It is impossible to understand sentences if they are in fact uninterrupted

   This argument only cares about whether sentences are or aren't sequences of separate words vs. uninterrupted streams of sound. It doesn't care at all about whether it's possible/impossible to understand an uninterrupted stream of sound. It would be a very extreme idea for the author to have committed to the idea that it's impossible to understand an uninterrupted stream of sound (it also seems contradicted by the fact that the author thinks sentences are uninterrupted streams of sound but also believes that native speakers can understand them).

   3%
2. B

   Opposite14% picked this

   Those who do not know a language cannot hear the way speech in that

   The author is trusting the opinion of the people who do not know the language, so this sounds like the opposite of what she's assuming. This answer would be more of a match if it said either "Those who know a language cannot hear how it actually sounds" or "Those who don't know a language can hear how it actually sounds"

   14%
3. C

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   People pay less close attention to the way their own language sounds than they do to the way

   Out of Scope: pay less close attention Causal Backstory to Premise This argument only cares about whether sentences are or aren't sequences of separate words vs. uninterrupted streams of sound. It doesn't care about how close attention we are paying. It only cares about the final evaluation. If we say that people pay just as much close attention to the way their language sounds as they do to the way an unfamiliar language sounds, that wouldn't hurt the argument. This answer is doing the famous trap of trying to assume a potential causal backstory to one of the facts of the case. "Why do the natives hear sentences differently than travelers do?" One possible causal explanation is that the natives pay less close attention and the travelers pay more. But the author doesn't need to think that natives have the "wrong" impression about whether sentences are sequences of distinct words because they aren't paying close enough attention. If it's for some other reason (like they're paying so much attention they're guessing what the rest of the sentence will be and thus perceiving each upcoming word as distinct), the argument still works.

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope: accomplished speakers6% picked this

   Accomplished non-native speakers of a language do not perceive sentences as

   The author has only told us about View 1 (native speakers) vs. View 2 (outsiders who don't know the language) and has assumed that View 2 is correct. She hasn't committed to any opinion on View 3 (outsiders who do know the language exceptionally well).

   6%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   Native speakers’ perceptions of their own language are not more accurate than are the perceptions of persons who

   Why this is right

   This has the lovable ruling-out "not" that so many correct Defender answers have. We slow down and negate it. Would it hurt the argument to say, "Yo, author -- native speakers' perceptions are more accurate than are the perceptions of these travelers who don't know the language"? Yes! That badly hurts the argument, in fact, because it takes the He Said / She Said tension and tells us that the author is trusting the wrong point of view. If the natives perception is more trustworthy, then we should be more inclined to think that sentences are sequences of separate words, and that the perception of travelers who don't speak the language (that sentences are just uninterrupted streams of sound) is an illusion.

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

   73%