Question:hard

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?

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

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis only says one thing: the structure of the language you speak affects how you think about reality. It does not equate thinking with intelligence, and it never claims that people who think alike are forced to speak the same language.

  1. Americans and Indians would have similar intelligence: Americans largely share one language while India has many languages, so the hypothesis predicts different thought patterns between the two groups, not similar intelligence, and intelligence itself is never part of the hypothesis.
  2. South Indians and North Indians would have similar intelligence: the same problem applies here, these groups speak different language families, so this option both misuses intelligence and ignores the very language differences the hypothesis is built on.
  3. Those with same intelligence would speak the same language: this flips the hypothesis around, claiming a mental trait forces a shared language. The passage never argues in this direction, and the word 'would' asserts far more certainty than the hypothesis allows.
  4. Those with similar intelligence may speak the same language: 'may' is doing the work here. It only opens up a possibility instead of demanding one, so it does not contradict the hypothesis or force a reversed cause onto it.

Because option 4 is worded as a mere possibility rather than a rule, it is the one conclusion that can be said to follow, at least loosely, without overstepping what the hypothesis actually claims.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension


Questions Asked in XAT exam