Final answer:
The statement that linked lists are slower to duplicate than arrays can be context-dependent, as it relies on the size of the data and the operations supported by the system's hardware and memory architecture.
Step-by-step explanation:
Linked lists are data structures consisting of nodes, where each node contains data and a reference to the next node in the sequence, making them inherently different from arrays, which are contiguous memory locations. The claim that linked lists are slower to duplicate than arrays can be context-dependent.
Duplicating a linked list requires allocating new nodes and setting the next references appropriately, an operation that runs in linear time relative to the number of elements. On the other hand, arrays can sometimes be duplicated faster, especially if they are small or if low-level memory copy operations are available. However, for very large arrays, the allocation and copying process can also take significant time, so the claim isn't necessarily 'True' or 'False' without context.
Considering practical programming scenarios, linked lists might be slower to duplicate due to the overhead of dynamic memory allocation and pointer assignments, but it is not accurate to assert this as a blanket statement without considering various factors such as data size and the operations supported by the underlying hardware and memory architecture.