16. We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, the language from which all Indo-European language descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because Proto-Indo-European lacks a word for "sea," yet contains works for "winter," "snow," and "wolf."
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
B. Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.
D. Proto-Indo European possesses words for "heat."
I picked D. The argument assumes that the Proto-Indo-Eurpoean languages possiblly have words of things that they see such as "winter" "snow" "wolf" wouldn't it weaken the arguement if they had a word such as heat which is something that you can't see, but feel....?
Why is B right? Does it matter that some languages lack words for prominent elements of the enivronment like maybe some Asian languages or other different language trees of which Proto-Indo-Europeans do not evolve from, for me this answer is too broad...some...in this case does not seem to impact this argument?
Please share your thoughts...