If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content
Current time:0:00Total duration:4:32

Match principles | Worked example

Video transcript

the linguist says most people can tell whether a sequence of words in their own dialect is grammatical yet few people who can do so are able to specify the relevant grammatical rules which one of the following best illustrates the principle underlying the linguists statements so just before even looking at those choices I'd say that the principle here is there are people who are capable of applying fairly sophisticated rules without necessarily being able to specify the rules and there the linguist say is using that principle in the context of grammar so let's look at the choices some people are able to write cogent and accurate narrative description of events but these people are not necessarily also capable of composing emotionally moving and satisfying poems that doesn't feel like the same principle if they said some people are able to write cogent and accurate narrative descriptions of events but they have trouble stating the rules that they're using to be able to do that well that would be much closer to what this the prints underlying principle underlying principle of what this linguist is saying here it's more of the principle of people being able to go from very accurate narrative descriptions of events to something that is a little bit more movie moving emotionally moving and satisfying so this one this one does not look great I'll cross it out right there but I will leave it as an option but it doesn't look actually I'll just cross this one out because this one feels quite different Engineers who apply the principles of physics to design buildings and bridges must know a great deal more than do the physicists who discover these principles now here they're trying to make a comparison between those who apply and those who discover the principles that's not what's going on over here so I'll rule that out some people are able to tell whether any given piece of music is a waltz but the majority of these people cannot state the defining characteristics of a waltz so this seems to be the same underlying principle that people can recognize something they can recognize something so their brain somehow can pattern match hey that's a waltz but they cannot articulate the finding characteristics that's the same way that people's brains can recognize whether something is grammatical but they can't specify the actual rules the actual rules are knowledge to the actual defining characteristics of a Walt so I really like this choice right over here it seems to be the exact same principle people can recognize things but oftentimes those same people who recognize can't tell you exactly the specific rules that that make that recognition possible choice be those travelers who most enjoy their journeys are not always the most capable of vividly describing the details of those journeys to others no this isn't this the reason why this doesn't feel right is what it's not recognizing kind of a classification scenario in the original one or suite you can somewhat classify whether something is grammatical or not until I see can someone recognize whether someone is a waltz or not and then those who are able to recognize they still have trouble articulating exactly why here they're it's not whether or not someone can recognize whether something falls in a category we're talking about people who enjoy things but then they're not able to describe the details of those journeys which is a little bit different than you know being able to recognize whether something Falls is a category well it's quite a bit different of whether you can recognize whether something falls into a category and then articulating exactly or failing to articulate exactly why it's in that category so I'll rule that out quite a few people know the rules of chess but only a small number of them can play chess very well this is almost the opposite this is saying a lot of people know the rules but they have trouble applying it to being put to play chess very well this would have been similar to C or the original statement if they say quite a good number of people who play chess can't articulate the rules now that would be kind of a you know any of us who play chess would say that's that would be kind of a not true statement but it would have a similar would be based on the similar principle but this one definitely isn't this is saying the other way around that a lot of people know the rules they can articulate the rules but they can't necessarily apply them to play a game of chess very so I would rule that out and I definitely feel very comfortable about choice see