We need to find what the passage does NOT suggest as a reason for South America's better language survival rates. The passage explains North America lost languages due to: physical destruction of communities -> forced removal of children to boarding schools -> prohibition of native languages and practices. So if South America had better survival rates, it would be because the opposite happened there. From passage: "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." The passage focuses on: physical violence -> cultural suppression -> family separation -> language prohibition.

Now we need to check which option is NOT supported by what the passage tells us: 🟢 Option 1 -> plausible -> If children stayed with families (opposite of boarding schools), languages would survive better 🟢 Option 2 -> plausible -> If colonists failed to force locals into dominant culture, native languages would persist 🔴 Option 3 -> irrelevant -> The passage never mentions jobs or economic opportunities as factors in language survival. It only talks about violence and cultural suppression, not employment 🟢 Option 4 -> plausible -> If fewer native speakers died (opposite of "death and destruction"), more languages would survive The passage never discusses economic opportunities or jobs as factors in language survival. It only focuses on physical destruction and forced cultural changes.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts