Efficiency and redundancy are contradictory characteristics of linguistic systems: however, they can be used together to achieve usefulness and reliability in communication. If a spoken language is completely efficient, then every possible permutation of its basic language sounds can be an understandable word. However, if the human auditory system is an imperfect receptor of sounds, then it is not true that every possible permutation of a spoken language’s basic language sounds can be an understandable word.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

(A) Efficiency causes a spoken language to be useful and redundancy causes it to be reliable.

(B) Neither efficiency nor redundancy can be completely achieved in spoken language.

(C) If a spoken language were completely redundant, then it could not be useful.

(D) If the human auditory system were a perfect receptor of sounds, then every permutation of language sounds would be an understandable word.

(E) If the human auditory system is an imperfect receptor of sounds, then a spoken language cannot be completely efficient.

(D) If the human auditory system were a perfect receptor of sounds, then every permutation of language sounds would be an understandable word.  

Explanation:

From the question, it is stated that if the human auditory system is an imperfect receptor of sounds, then it is not true that every possible permutation of a spoken language’s basic language sounds can be an understandable word.

Hence, this also means that if the human auditory system is a perfect receptor of sounds, then it is also true that every permutation of language sounds would be an understandable word.

the first option is correct

mark me brainliest

~courtney

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals