The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Languages become endangered and die out for many reasons. Sadly, the physical annihilation of communities of native speakers of a language is all too often the cause of language extinction. In North America, European colonists brought death and destruction to many Native American communities. This was followed by US federal policies restricting the use of indigenous languages, including the removal of native children from their communities to federal boarding schools where native languages and cultural practices were prohibited. As many as 75 percent of the languages spoken in the territories that became the United States have gone extinct, with slightly better language survival rates in Central and South America ...
Even without physical annihilation and prohibitions against language use, the language of the "dominant" cultures may drive other languages into extinction; young people see education, jobs, culture and technology associated with the dominant language and focus their attention on that language. The largest language "killers" are English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russian, Hindi, and Chinese, all of which have privileged status as dominant languages threatening minority languages.
When we lose a language, we lose the worldview, culture and knowledge of the people who spoke it, constituting a loss to all humanity. People around the world live in direct contact with their native environment, their habitat. When the language they speak goes extinct, the rest of humanity loses their knowledge of that environment, their wisdom about the relationship between local plants and illness, their philosophical and religious beliefs, as well as their native cultural expression (in music, visual art and poetry) that has enriched both the speakers of that language and others who would have encountered that culture ...
As educators deeply immersed in the liberal arts, we believe that educating students broadly in all facets of language and culture ... yields immense rewards. Some individuals educated in the liberal arts tradition will pursue advanced study in linguistics and become actively engaged in language preservation, setting out for the Amazon, for example, with video recording equipment to interview the last surviving elders in a community to record and document a language spoken by no children.
Certainly, though, the vast majority of students will not pursue this kind of activity. For these students, a liberal arts education is absolutely critical from the twin perspectives of language extinction and global citizenship. When students study languages other than their own, they are sensitized to the existence of different cultural perspectives and practices. With such an education, students are more likely to be able to articulate insights into their own cultural biases, be more empathetic to individuals of other cultures, communicate successfully across linguistic and cultural differences, consider and resolve questions in a way that reflects multiple cultural perspectives, and, ultimately extend support to people, programs, practices, and policies that support the preservation of endangered languages.
There is ample evidence that such preservation can work in languages spiraling toward extinction. For example, Navajo, Cree, and Inuit communities have established schools in which these languages are the language of instruction, and the number of speakers of each has increased.
Which one of the following hypothetical scenarios, if true, would most strongly undermine the central ideas of the passage?
The central idea of the passage is that endangered languages, as carriers of unique cultural perspectives and human knowledge, must be preserved to benefit humanity. The author argues that liberal arts education plays a vital role in this preservation, both by fostering global citizenship and by encouraging some individuals to directly engage in preservation efforts. Liberal arts education, as framed in the passage, sensitises students to cultural diversity and equips them with the tools to support endangered languages and cultures.
We observe that Option B, however, directly undermines this central idea by redefining the focus of liberal arts education. Requiring fluency in two of the most widely spoken global languages (e.g., English, Spanish, Mandarin) would prioritise dominant languages rather than endangered ones. This hypothetical scenario shifts resources and attention away from the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is central to the passage's argument. Such a requirement would reinforce the dominance of already powerful languages, the very phenomenon identified as a major “language killer” in the passage. By institutionalizing the focus on dominant languages, it would erode the argument that liberal arts education fosters support for endangered languages and cultural preservation, ultimately weakening the role of liberal arts in addressing language extinction.
In contrast, the remaining choices either align with the discussion or do not serve as strong counterarguments to the points presented in the passage. For instance, Option A acknowledges that most liberal arts students will not directly engage in language preservation but does not challenge the broader idea that liberal arts education fosters empathy and support for endangered languages. Option C limits the long-term success of language preservation but does not negate its immediate benefits or the potential for renewal in subsequent generations. Similarly, Option D highlights a limitation of recording dying languages but does not undermine the broader argument that documentation is a valuable and necessary tool in preservation.
Create a FREE account and get: