Skip to main contentSkip to solution

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?

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

We need to find which scenario would most strongly go against the main ideas in the passage.

Step 1: What are the passage's central ideas?

  • Languages are dying out and this is bad because we lose knowledge and culture
  • Liberal arts education helps by teaching students about different cultures and languages
  • This creates people who support preserving endangered languages
  • Even students who don't become language experts can still help through cultural awareness

Step 2: Which scenario would directly oppose these ideas?

From passage: "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."

Thought process: Passage says dominant languages → kill minority languages → liberal arts should teach appreciation for endangered languages → but what if liberal arts focused only on dominant languages instead?


🟠 Option 1 → irrelevant → Passage already says "vast majority of students will not pursue this kind of activity" - so this doesn't go against anything

🟢 Option 2 → directly contradicts → Passage calls these big languages "killers" of minority languages, but this option wants liberal arts to focus only on these same "killer" languages

🟠 Option 3 → partial truth → Even one generation of preservation is still some success, which supports the passage's idea that preservation efforts can work

🟠 Option 4 → doesn't undermine → Passage supports recording dying languages, so even if it "freezes" them, that's still better than losing them completely

The key confusion students might have is between Options 1 and 2. But Option 1 actually agrees with the passage - the author expects most students won't become linguists. Option 2 is the opposite of what the passage wants - it focuses on the exact languages the passage calls "killers" instead of the endangered ones the passage wants to protect.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question