Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S2 · Q13 In many languages other than English

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In many languages other than English there is a word for "mother's brother" which is different from the word for "father's brother," whereas English uses the word "uncle" for both.

Premise

Number of basic words for colors varies widely from language to language.

Conclusion

Speakers of languages with fewer basic color words must be perceptually unable to distinguish as many colors as English speakers.

Evaluate

The argument leaps from "fewer basic color words" to "can't perceptually distinguish as many colors." That requires that vocabulary tracks perception — i.e., that having a word for something corresponds to being able to perceive it (and lacking a word means lacking the perception).

Goal

An answer that establishes the link: each language has a distinct word for each sensory thing its speakers can distinguish (so fewer words means fewer distinctions made).

13.

The conclusion concerning words for colors would be properly drawn if which one of the following were assumed?

  1. Most languages have distinct words

    Out of Scope

    This is about kinship words ("sister"/"brother"), which is the warm-up example, not about colors. Even granted, this doesn't bridge "fewer color words" to "perceives fewer colors."

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    Each language has a different

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap. If each language has a different basic word for each sensory quality its speakers can perceptually distinguish, then a language with fewer color words means its speakers can distinguish fewer colors. Apply this to colors specifically: speakers of languages with fewer basic color words must therefore be unable to perceptually distinguish as many colors. Conclusion guaranteed.

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

    66% picked this

  3. Every language makes some category

    Out of Scope

    This says every language makes some unique category distinction. That doesn't establish the needed link between vocabulary count and perceptual ability. Knowing each language is unique somehow doesn't mean fewer color words = fewer perceivable colors.

    7% picked this

  4. In any language short, frequently

    Out of Scope

    This says short, frequent words express important categories. That's about which categories get short words, not about whether absence of a word means inability to perceive. It doesn't bridge the gap.

    19% picked this

  5. Speakers of languages with relatively

    Out of Scope

    This explains why some languages might have fewer color words (limited color variety in their environment). But it doesn't establish the perceptual claim — that speakers can't distinguish more colors. Someone could have fewer color words because they don't need them, while still being perfectly capable of perceiving more colors.

    7% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free