Which statement about Tan is NOT correct?

Which statement about Tan is NOT correct?

• A. Initial symptoms appeared around age 30
• B. Broca met Tan 20 years after initial symptoms
• C. Loss of speech was thought to occur due to epilepsy (not the case)
• D. Ten years later Tan experienced right hemiparesis but comprehension was intact

Answer: (C)

This item hinges on how Tan’s case helped define expressive aphasia and its brain basis. The key idea is that language production can be severely impaired by a focal left frontal lobe lesion, while comprehension remains relatively intact. The statement that the loss of speech was thought to occur due to epilepsy does not fit the historical evidence. Tan’s speech loss was attributed to a localized brain damage—later identified in the left inferior frontal region (Broca’s area)—not to epilepsy. He’s classically described as having fluent comprehension with nonfluent, effortful speech, and a right-sided weakness from the same left-sided lesion. The other facts align with this pattern: symptoms began around age 30, Broca met Tan about 20 years after onset, and years later he had right hemiparesis with preserved comprehension.

This item hinges on how Tan’s case helped define expressive aphasia and its brain basis. The key idea is that language production can be severely impaired by a focal left frontal lobe lesion, while comprehension remains relatively intact. The statement that the loss of speech was thought to occur due to epilepsy does not fit the historical evidence. Tan’s speech loss was attributed to a localized brain damage—later identified in the left inferior frontal region (Broca’s area)—not to epilepsy. He’s classically described as having fluent comprehension with nonfluent, effortful speech, and a right-sided weakness from the same left-sided lesion. The other facts align with this pattern: symptoms began around age 30, Broca met Tan about 20 years after onset, and years later he had right hemiparesis with preserved comprehension.