Q12

[mrudula_2005]

What's wrong with C? Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Hi, thanks for the question! Can you please clarify which problem you're referring to? You've posted under Reading Comprehension, but your post title indicates that the problem is from section 2, which is a Logical Reasoning section. Let me know which one it is -- and what specifically makes answer (C) appealing to you -- and we'll take it from there!

[mrudula_2005]

Hi, thanks for the question! Can you please clarify which problem you're referring to? You've posted under Reading Comprehension, but your post title indicates that the problem is from section 2, which is a Logical Reasoning section. Let me know which one it is -- and what specifically makes answer (C) appealing to you -- and we'll take it from there!

Oh my bad - I meant Section 1. whoops! I definitely see how B is correct (actually I read the answer choices from E backwards and if I had read all the way to B, I probably would have picked it), but C seemed to match the situation in paragraph 3 just fine (and that paragraph was, afterall, what was dedicated to offering evidence that code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors). Doesn't C aptly describe paragraph 3 (especially lines 52-55)? Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Okay, I've fixed the thread title.

Great question. (C) is indeed a very, very tempting incorrect answer. But we have to be careful. We're told that situational factors influence code-switching, but not that situational context has to change in order for code-switching to take place. In other words, there's nothing in the passage to suggest that code-switching only occurs when there's some change in situational factors. Rather, there might just be some situations that lend themselves to code-switching, and some that don't.

(B) is correct. We're told at the beginning of the third paragraph that code-switching "occurs even when the domain would lead one not to expect it."

(A) is an unsupported interpretation. This fact is mentioned, but not as evidence for the observation in question.

(D) is out of scope. We're told that the Puerto Rican family uses some Spanish when situational factors would suggest no code-switching, but we're not told which language we'd expect them to be speaking.

(E) is out of scope. We're told that speakers can be unaware of code-switching, but nothing at all about whether they're aware of situational factors.

Did that answer your question? Let me know if you're still unconvinced about answer (C).

[geverett]

Would D be correct if it read:

"Puerto Rican Americans sometimes use English only sparingly and for rhetorical effect in the presence of situational factors that would lead one to expect Spanish to be the primary language."

I misread Spanish, and somehow read it as saying English. Oh well. It happens. Would love to hear thoughts on this.

[randitect]

I don't understand why D is incorrect (note, D is not talking about the family in the last paragraph, but rather Puerto Rican Americans in general). If they use mostly English in the presence of situational factors that would lead one to expect mostly Spanish (as is stated in D), then why is that not evidence that situational factors are not enough to explain code-switching? Moreover, it mentions sparing use of a second language for rhetorical effect, once again supporting the conclusion that situational factors are not the sole explanation: you also have rhetorical factors.

Help please!

[giladedelman]

Good questions. The problem with (D) is that it's about which language you would expect to be used, not about whether you would expect code-switching at all. In other words, the situations described here might be situations in which you would expect Spanish to be the dominant language and you would expect code-switching to occur between Spanish and English. Thus, this is not evidence of how code-switching itself cannot be explained totally by situational factors. Does that make sense?

[joseph.carroll.555]

Good questions. The problem with (D) is that it's about which language you would expect to be used, not about whether you would expect code-switching at all. In other words, the situations described here might be situations in which you would expect Spanish to be the dominant language and you would expect code-switching to occur between Spanish and English. Thus, this is not evidence of how code-switching itself cannot be explained totally by situational factors. Does that make sense?

I could be mistaken, but I thought D was wrong because we are looking for what the passage offers as evidence that code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors. D is offering something that, though similar to the passage, is not actually mentioned by the passage at all.

[jake.rambeau]

Okay, I've fixed the thread title.

Great question. (C) is indeed a very, very tempting incorrect answer. But we have to be careful. We're told that situational factors influence code-switching, but not that situational context has to change in order for code-switching to take place. In other words, there's nothing in the passage to suggest that code-switching only occurs when there's some change in situational factors. Rather, there might just be some situations that lend themselves to code-switching, and some that don't.
.

I see the part of the passage that you are referring to in lines 44-46. However in lines 53-55 it uses as evidence "conversations contained spanish, with no change in situational factors". This is the exact evidence it is using as its support of the claim in line 44-46. The fact that there was no change in situational factors IS WHY you wouldn't expect the code switching. So really B and C are both correct, no?

Please prove me wrong because this problem is really killing me.
Is it something to do with the switch from "situational factors" in the text, to "situational context" in the answer?

[anjelica.grace]

So I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to analyze this question, especially answer choices B, C, and D. I incorrectly chose C.

Here is my take on the tempting incorrect answer choices:

C is wrong, for one thing, because no change in situational factors DOES NOT MEAN that the code-switching is not situationally determined. For example, we can have the same participants, topic, and setting (i.e. no change) and the code-switching that occurs could still be explained by situational factors. Secondly, that "bilingual people often switch smoothly between two languages" is pulled from the start of the passage that is still describing code-switching without yet making any claims as to why this is. It combines that part with the phrase "with no change in situational context" to force the reader to associate it with the third paragraph. Therefore, C is a statement that actually isn't made in the passage, much less offered as evidence that code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors. Admittedly, I chose C because of that "no change in situational factors" phrase but I realize that phrase is associated with the ONE family in the one study who code-switched OCCASIONALLY with no change in situational context, so C overgeneralizes in saying bilingual PEOPLE OFTEN code-switch with no change in situational context, which cannot be inferred from the study alone.

Now D. I didn't initially have a problem eliminating this until the discussion above prompted me to think harder about my reasons for eliminating it. I believe that D is wrong because the claim the "code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors" supports D in a way, not the other way around.
If we broke down paragraph 3's argument core, it would be:
Premise: Code-switching occurs when situational factors lead one not to expect it.
Intermediate Claim: Code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors.
Conclusion: Rhetorical factors can explain code-switching where situational factors can't.
Premise: Study of Puerto Rican American family indicating rhetorical reasons.
The claim that code-switching cannot be entirely explained by situational factors paves the way for the rhetorical explanation (the overall argument of paragraph 3), rather than "example of rhetorical code-switching --> code-switching not all situational."
Also, D is wrong because code-switching that situational factors predict would occur in a different language mix is NOT the same thing as code-switching that situational factors predict would not occur at all, which is the actual evidence used and stated in credited response B.

I hope I'm on the right track, I spent all morning trying to dissect it.

[daniel]

Would D be correct if it read:

"Puerto Rican Americans sometimes use English only sparingly and for rhetorical effect in the presence of situational factors that would lead one to expect Spanish to be the primary language."

I misread Spanish, and somehow read it as saying English. Oh well. It happens. Would love to hear thoughts on this.

This question had occurred to me while I was reviewing this question as well. Ultimately, I don't think that D would be correct if it were to be rephrased as you stated above. To make D correct, it would have to say:

"Puerto Rican Americans sometimes use Spanish only sparingly and for rhetorical effect in the presence of situational factors that would lead one to expect English to be the only language."

This is a restatement of the case study in paragraph 3. Answer D was tempting because it seems very similar to what was stated in paragraph 3, but it misses the mark by a lot.

[wgutx08]

Not sure but I feel that the "often" in answer C also contributes to why it's wrong. The passage gave us one example, and my overall feeling is that the "often" is not justified, especially when stated in such a broad context as "Bilingual people" instead of just Puerto Rican Americans.

Not sure if this is a bit (or very) far-fetched though...

[seychelles1718]

Can someone please explain why C is wrong? I know why B is right but am still not so clear how I can confidently eliminate C...

[haeeunjee]

(C) is wrong because there can be situational contexts in which the smooth switching between two languages is actually expected.

Remember that code-switching situations don't necessarily call for all Spanish or all English. The researchers themselves acknowledged a continuum of all Eng to all Spanish. Thus, even if bilingual people switch smoothly between two languages even with no change in the situation, that is ACCEPTABLE and still explainable by entirely situational factors because there may be situations that call for a mix of languages (ie two teens gossiping about a peer = a typical situation that uses both Spanish and English)

[snoopy]

Not sure but I feel that the "often" in answer C also contributes to why it's wrong. The passage gave us one example, and my overall feeling is that the "often" is not justified, especially when stated in such a broad context as "Bilingual people" instead of just Puerto Rican Americans.

Not sure if this is a bit (or very) far-fetched though...

I also saw this as additional support for why C is wrong. This explanation in addition to others' stating that no change in situational context does not mean code-switching won't happen lead to my decision to eliminate C and choose B as the more fitting answer.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I'm sure I leaned on "often" too, because (B) was so much more easily supportable, with "sometimes".

I'm SURE I have at least one example, to support "sometimes".
Do I know I can support "OFTEN"?

In the last paragraph, we heard that
"NOT ALL code-switching is situational" (44-45) = some code-switching is not situational

In the first paragraph, we heard that
"in the the vast majority of cases, situational/rhetorical factors explain code-switching" (8-10), so again we're hearing that it's crazy rare but sometimes code-switching is not situational.

And in the 3rd paragraph it said that they used the 2nd language "only sparingly".

So overall, (B) was more attractive because
"the passage offered as evidence" (question stem) these rare, not-all, only sparingly counterexample situations.