Linguist: Regional dialects, many of

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong6% picked this

   No two local populations have the same communicative needs as

   Too Strong: all are unique Doesn't Mention New Concept The author is definitely assuming that "not all local populations have the same needs", because she assumes that different local populations will have different, particular needs. But she doesn't need to assume that "no local populations have the same needs". If we negate this answer and say, "hey, author, there are at least two local populations that have the same communicative needs as each other", that won't hurt the author. She'll just say, "Sure. But there are many local populations that don't have the same communicative needs as each other, and that's why there will be many regional dialects created".

   6%
2. B

   Out of Scope: engage in trade3% picked this

   In some regions of the world, at least some people will not engage in international trade after the

   The author's argument doesn't hinge at all on any given amount of people who do / don't engage in trade. If we negate this, it will be saying, "Every single person in the world will engage in international trade once the world economy unifies". That doesn't hurt the author's argument at all. She can say, "Yup, everyone will be engaged in international trade, but there will be local populations with particular communicative needs so the universal trade language will develop some regional dialects.

   3%
3. C

   Trigger-Support Too Strong: unless3% picked this

   A universal language for use in international trade will not arise unless the world

   Any time the conclusion is a conditional claim, we will never be ... - strengthening by suggesting that the trigger is likely to happen - weaken by suggesting that the trigger is unlikely to happen - assuming that the trigger will happen In other words, just accept the trigger. Worry about the outcome. If we see that this answer's language is completely wrapped up in the internal language of the trigger, there's no way it's performing the Evidence to Conclusion link we want. Suppose I say, "When rising sea levels from global warming force Miami residents to head inland, Orlando will be the primary place they go." Am I assuming that, "Miami residents will not head inland, unless global warming causes rising sea levels"? Of course not. They may go inland because of a hurricane, or because the real estate in Miami gets too expensive. Our author is implying that a unified world economy would be sufficient to force the adoption of a universal language, but she doesn't imply that a unified world economy is required for a universal language to be adopted.

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope: eradicated4% picked this

   When the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, many regional dialects

   This argument doesn't need to assume that any regional dialects are eradicated. It's only claiming that many new regional dialects will be created. (You don't have to destroy an old one to create a new one)

   4%
5. E

   Correct84% picked this

   After the unification of the world economy, there will be variation among many different local populations in their

   Why this is right

   If we wanted to look at this formally, the conclusion is claiming this logic path: Unified economy many with universal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > regional trade language dialects The evidence provided this much. responses to many particular local - - > regional communic needs dialects The answer is addressing this missing link. Unified economy responses to with universal ---> particular local trade language communic needs

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

   84%