CAT 2024 Slot 3 — VARC Question 18
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?
Answer & solution
- A
Recording a dying language that has only a few remaining speakers freezes it in time: it stops evolving further.
- B
Most liberal arts students will pursue jobs in publishing and human resource management rather than doctorates in linguistics.
A liberal arts education requires that, in addition to being fluent in English, students gain fluency in two of the top five most spoken languages globally.
- D
Schools that teach endangered languages can preserve the language only for a generation.
Hard
The passage's central ideas: language extinction is a real loss, and a liberal-arts education that exposes students to many different languages/cultures fosters empathy, awareness of bias, and support for preservation. The undermining scenario should contradict the diversity-of-cultures premise of that education.
Why wrong. "Recording a dying language freezes it in time." This is a minor caveat about one preservation method; it doesn't dismantle the thesis about loss or the value of broad language education.
Why wrong. That most students take publishing/HR jobs rather than linguistics doctorates is fully consistent with the passage — it already says "the vast majority of students will not pursue this kind of activity." No contradiction.
Why right. "A liberal arts education requires ... fluency in two of the top five most spoken languages globally." Those top languages are the dominant "language killers" (English, Spanish, etc.). If liberal-arts education funnels students into the very dominant tongues that crush minority languages — instead of exposing them to diverse/endangered cultures — it undercuts the passage's claim that such education sensitises students to minority cultures and supports preservation. This strikes at the core argument.
Why wrong. "Schools can preserve a language only for a generation" weakens the closing example slightly, but the central thesis (loss + the empowering role of broad education) survives. Less damaging than C.
Correct answer: Option C.