Question:
Read the following passage and answer the question below.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers to the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality. The linguistic relativity hypothesis focuses on structural differences among natural languages such as Hopi, Chinese, and English, and asks whether the classifications of reality implicit in such structures affect our thinking about reality. Analytically, linguistic relativity as an issue stands between two others: a semiotic-level concern with how speaking any natural language whatsoever might influence the general potential for human thinking, and a functional or discourse-level concern with how using any given language code in a particular way might influence thinking, that is, the impact of special discursive practices such as schooling and literacy on formal thought. Although analytically distinct, the three issues are intimately related in both theory and practice. For example, claims about linguistic relativity depend on understanding the general psychological mechanisms linking language to thinking, and on understanding the diverse uses of speech in discourse to accomplish acts of descriptive reference. Hence, the relation of particular linguistic structures to patterns of thinking forms only one part of the broader array of questions about the significance of language for thought. Proposals of linguistic relativity necessarily develop two linked claims among the key terms of the hypothesis, language, thought, and reality. First, languages differ significantly in their interpretations of experienced reality, both what they select for representation and how they arrange it. Second, language interpretations have influences on thought about reality more generally, whether at the individual or cultural level. Claims for linguistic relativity thus require both articulating the contrasting interpretations of reality latent in the structures of different languages, and accessing their broader influences on, or relationships to, the cognitive interpretation of reality.
Question: Which of the following conclusions can be derived based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
Read the following passage and answer the question below.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers to the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality. The linguistic relativity hypothesis focuses on structural differences among natural languages such as Hopi, Chinese, and English, and asks whether the classifications of reality implicit in such structures affect our thinking about reality. Analytically, linguistic relativity as an issue stands between two others: a semiotic-level concern with how speaking any natural language whatsoever might influence the general potential for human thinking, and a functional or discourse-level concern with how using any given language code in a particular way might influence thinking, that is, the impact of special discursive practices such as schooling and literacy on formal thought. Although analytically distinct, the three issues are intimately related in both theory and practice. For example, claims about linguistic relativity depend on understanding the general psychological mechanisms linking language to thinking, and on understanding the diverse uses of speech in discourse to accomplish acts of descriptive reference. Hence, the relation of particular linguistic structures to patterns of thinking forms only one part of the broader array of questions about the significance of language for thought. Proposals of linguistic relativity necessarily develop two linked claims among the key terms of the hypothesis, language, thought, and reality. First, languages differ significantly in their interpretations of experienced reality, both what they select for representation and how they arrange it. Second, language interpretations have influences on thought about reality more generally, whether at the individual or cultural level. Claims for linguistic relativity thus require both articulating the contrasting interpretations of reality latent in the structures of different languages, and accessing their broader influences on, or relationships to, the cognitive interpretation of reality.
Question: Which of the following conclusions can be derived based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers to the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality. The linguistic relativity hypothesis focuses on structural differences among natural languages such as Hopi, Chinese, and English, and asks whether the classifications of reality implicit in such structures affect our thinking about reality. Analytically, linguistic relativity as an issue stands between two others: a semiotic-level concern with how speaking any natural language whatsoever might influence the general potential for human thinking, and a functional or discourse-level concern with how using any given language code in a particular way might influence thinking, that is, the impact of special discursive practices such as schooling and literacy on formal thought. Although analytically distinct, the three issues are intimately related in both theory and practice. For example, claims about linguistic relativity depend on understanding the general psychological mechanisms linking language to thinking, and on understanding the diverse uses of speech in discourse to accomplish acts of descriptive reference. Hence, the relation of particular linguistic structures to patterns of thinking forms only one part of the broader array of questions about the significance of language for thought. Proposals of linguistic relativity necessarily develop two linked claims among the key terms of the hypothesis, language, thought, and reality. First, languages differ significantly in their interpretations of experienced reality, both what they select for representation and how they arrange it. Second, language interpretations have influences on thought about reality more generally, whether at the individual or cultural level. Claims for linguistic relativity thus require both articulating the contrasting interpretations of reality latent in the structures of different languages, and accessing their broader influences on, or relationships to, the cognitive interpretation of reality.
Question: Which of the following conclusions can be derived based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
Show Hint
Watch how strongly each option states its claim: a hypothesis about influence supports a cautious possibility, not a firm certainty.
Updated On: Jul 10, 2026
- Americans and Indians would have similar intelligence.
- South Indians and North Indians would have similar intelligence.
- Those with same intelligence would speak the same language.
- Those with similar intelligence may speak the same language.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The passage states the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the particular language a person speaks shapes how that person thinks about reality. We must pick the option that follows logically from this claim, without adding anything the passage does not support.
Step 2: Key Concept or Approach:
The hypothesis only makes a one-way claim: language influences thought. It says nothing about intelligence, and it does not claim that similar thinking forces two people to speak the same language. So the safest inference is the one that stays closest to this one-way link and uses a cautious 'may' rather than a firm 'would' or an equation with intelligence.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Option 1 claims Americans and Indians would have similar intelligence. Americans mostly speak one common language while Indians speak many different languages, so under the hypothesis their thought patterns would actually differ, and the option also wrongly equates thought with intelligence.
Option 2 makes the same intelligence-based claim for South Indians and North Indians, who also speak languages from different families, Dravidian versus Indo-Aryan, so it fails for the same reason.
Option 3 says those with the same intelligence would speak the same language. This reverses the hypothesis's direction, treating a mental trait as the cause of a shared language, which the passage never claims, and the word 'would' states this as a certainty the passage does not support.
Option 4 says those with similar intelligence may speak the same language. Here 'may' only claims a possibility, not a guarantee, so it does not overstate what the hypothesis supports, and it does not reverse the causal direction the way option 3 does, it just leaves room for language and thought to line up without asserting it as a rule.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Option 4 is the only one that stays within what the hypothesis actually supports, a cautious possibility rather than a false certainty or a reversed cause.
\[ \boxed{\text{Those with similar intelligence may speak the same language}} \]
The passage states the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the particular language a person speaks shapes how that person thinks about reality. We must pick the option that follows logically from this claim, without adding anything the passage does not support.
Step 2: Key Concept or Approach:
The hypothesis only makes a one-way claim: language influences thought. It says nothing about intelligence, and it does not claim that similar thinking forces two people to speak the same language. So the safest inference is the one that stays closest to this one-way link and uses a cautious 'may' rather than a firm 'would' or an equation with intelligence.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Option 1 claims Americans and Indians would have similar intelligence. Americans mostly speak one common language while Indians speak many different languages, so under the hypothesis their thought patterns would actually differ, and the option also wrongly equates thought with intelligence.
Option 2 makes the same intelligence-based claim for South Indians and North Indians, who also speak languages from different families, Dravidian versus Indo-Aryan, so it fails for the same reason.
Option 3 says those with the same intelligence would speak the same language. This reverses the hypothesis's direction, treating a mental trait as the cause of a shared language, which the passage never claims, and the word 'would' states this as a certainty the passage does not support.
Option 4 says those with similar intelligence may speak the same language. Here 'may' only claims a possibility, not a guarantee, so it does not overstate what the hypothesis supports, and it does not reverse the causal direction the way option 3 does, it just leaves room for language and thought to line up without asserting it as a rule.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Option 4 is the only one that stays within what the hypothesis actually supports, a cautious possibility rather than a false certainty or a reversed cause.
\[ \boxed{\text{Those with similar intelligence may speak the same language}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top XAT Verbal and Logical Ability Questions
- Read the following sentences carefully.
1) I went to Delhi by train because all the flights were running full.
2) He was on a train to Delhi when he heard the news
3) I am ashamed at my behaviour
4) The key for efficiency is to plan ahead
5) The police say she benefits the most with his death
6) He is always short of money and keep borrowing from friends Choose the option having all the correct sentences. - Read the following passage carefully and Answer the question that follows.
The August wildfire that roared through the town of Lahaina in Hawaii burned so hot that some of the dead were effectively cremated, their bones combusting to unidentifiable ash. Other bodies may have been lost in the Pacific Ocean, into which many of those fleeing the inferno were forced to plunge. As of Sept. 22, 97 people have been confirmed dead, but the Maui Police Department still lists 22 people as missing. That’s a common pattern in the aftermath of disasters. In Morocco, families are still desperately searching for hundreds of loved ones after a devastating earthquake, while thousands in Libya are missing after two dams collapsed in a heavy rainstorm. Climate change has supercharged the kind of deadly weather that creates disappearances. In March, over 500 Malawians were presumed dead after being buried in mudslides unleashed by the exceptionally intense Cyclone Freddy. For families of the missing, disappearance is a special kind of indefinite hell. In a wealthy country like the United States, victims of disaster tend to be quickly tallied and searched for. But poorer nations, which are already more vulnerable to the damage wrought by climate change, often don’t have the resources to follow through. We need to fund measures for these countries that both prevent disappearances through emergency preparedness and also resolve them by promptly identifying bodies. - Tech nostalgia tends to look wrong-headed eventually, whether it longs for the days before Gutenberg, or before daily newspapers, or before Twitter. We need to work against the ways that our minds have been systematically ‘rewired’ to align with the interests of tech giants, polluters and even a culture of overparenting. We can’t truly opt out of the age of distraction by, say, ditching the smartphone. Indeed, we will still worry, as we should, about how our minds interact with external things. But together we should imagine a future of more conscientious thinking, not a past.
Which of the following would be the most meaningful conclusion of the passage? - Which of the following sentences have the CORRECT usage of punctuation?
- There are about 50, 000 houses and apartments bought in a year in Bangalore. That means an average of 125 houses are bought every day in the city. But it is also a fact that more than a thousand people view houses for sale every day. This means that people who view houses for sale are just wasting the time of the brokers or house owners as they have no intention of buying.
Which of the following, if true,weakens the argument most?
View More Questions
Top XAT Reading Comprehension Questions
- Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.
Geologists have been investigating a potential cycle in geological events for a long time. Back in the 1920s and 30s, scientists of the era had suggested that the geological record had a 30-million-year cycle, while in the 1980s and 90s researchers used the best-dated geological events at the time to give them a range of the length between 'pulses' of 26.2 to 30.6 million years. Now, everything seems to be in order – 27.5 million years is right about where we'd expect. A study late last year suggested that this 27.5-million-year mark is when mass extinctions happen, too.
Which of the following statements can be BEST concluded from the passage? - Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.
What does a good life look like to you? For some, the phrase may conjure up images of a close-knit family, a steady job, and a Victorian house at the end of a street arched with oak trees. Others may focus on the goal of making a difference in the world, whether by working as a nurse or teacher, volunteering, or pouring their energy into environmental activism. According to Aristotlean theory, the first kind of life would be classified as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is “eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and fulfilment one gets by contributing to the greater good. The ancient Greek philosopher outlined these ideas in his treatise Nicomachean Ethics, and the psychological sciences have pretty much stuck them ever since when discussing the possibilities of what people might want out of their time on Earth. But a new paper, published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, suggests there’s another way to live a good life. It isn’t focused on happiness or purpose, but rather it’s a life that’s “psychologically rich.”
What is a psychologically rich life? According to authors Shige Oishi, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and Erin Westgate, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, it’s one characterized by “interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective.”
Studying abroad, for example, is one way that college students often introduce psychological richness into their lives. As they learn more about a new country’s customs and history, they’re often prompted to reconsider the social mores of their own cultures. Deciding to embark on a difficult new career path or immersing one’s self in avant-garde art (the paper gives a specific shout-out to James Joyce’s Ulysses) also could make a person feel as if their life is more psychologically rich.
Crucially, an experience doesn’t have to be fun in order to qualify as psychologically enriching. It might even be a hardship. Living through war or a natural disaster might make it hard to feel as though you’re living a particularly happy or purposeful life, but you can still come out of the experience with psychological richness. Or you might encounter less dramatic but nonetheless painful events: infertility, chronic illness, unemployment. Regardless of the specifics, you may experience suffering but still find value in how your experience shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you. - Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.
One theory of accidents is what experts call the Swiss Cheese model. A slab of Swiss cheese hasseveral holes, randomly and unevenly distributed over its surface. If several slabs are stackedtogether, it would be impossible for something to slip through unless all the holes happen to lineup.
If even one slab doesn’t align, the impending catastrophe will meet a layer of resistance, and theworst is averted. Aviation professionals will tell you that plane crashes never happen for a singlereason. There may be an identifiable primary factor, but it’s usually a chain of events, an array of circumstances neatly piling up.
Which of the following statements can be BEST concluded from the passage? - Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.
What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to. This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends upon deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are. It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. - Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.
What Arendt does for us is to remind us that our “publicness” is as important to our flourishing as our sociability and our privacy. She draws a distinction between what it means to act “socially” and what is means to act “politically.” The social realm for Arendt is both the context where all our basic survival needs “are permitted to appear in public” and also the realm of “behaviour.” One of the things she fears about modern societies is that society – focused on how we behave and what we will permit for ourselves and others – becomes the realm of conformism. This is worrying not just because we don’t really get vibrant societies out of conformism and sameness, but also, Arendt says because there is a risk that we think this is all there is to our living together. We lose ourselves in the tasks of managing behaviour and forget that our true public task is to act, and to distinguish ourselves in doing so. The risk, says Arendt, is therefore that we confuse behaviour with action, that in modern liberal societies “behaviour replaces action as the foremost mode of human relationship.” This confusion can happen in any area of our modern lives and institutions, secular or faith-based. None is immune.
Arendt wants to drive home the point that the healthy public life requires that we do not just see ourselves as social actors but also as fully public persons, committed to judging and acting as members of a common world we want to inhabit and pass on. Arendt tells us that public action is action in which we stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good. This is the space where we take risks, subject our common life to scrutiny, seek justice (that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws) in order to be increasingly open to the claims and needs of other humans – ones who are not our household and our kin.
View More Questions
Top XAT Questions
- Ashok, a maths teacher in the school, asked his students to guess his date of birth by giving the following hints.
Hint 1: He was born in 1995
Hint 2: The sum of the products of his birth date multiplied by 24 and his birthday month multiplied by 60 is 1284.
Find the sum of Ashok’s birth date, birth month, and birth year. - Solve for the number of integral values of \(x: \frac{(x^2-15x+47)(x-13)}{(x-8)}<0\).
- In an examination, Akhil scored 11.11% less than the pass marks and Akshay scored 12.5% more than the pass marks. Find the percentage of pass marks if the sum of the scores of Akhil and Akshay is 25% more than the total marks.
- The ratio of paint and oil in Tank A is 3: 4, whereas in Tank B, the respective ratio is 4: 5 . Then, 96 liters of a mixture consisting of paint and oil in the ratio of 5: 1 is added to Tank A, such that the respective ratio in Tank A becomes exactly the reverse of that in Tank B. Find the amount (in liters) of the mixture from Tank B that is poured into Tank A such that the amount of paint and water in Tank A become equal.
- The points (–4, 3) and (–1, –4) are two end points of a diagonal of a parallelogram. If the other diagonal has the equation 7y + 3x + c = 0, then find the value of c.
View More Questions