Few linguists would argue against the view that our first language is acquired and not learned. Pre-school children do not study their native tongue nor do they learn grammar rules but, by the time they start school at the age of five or six, the vast majority are competent users of their language. Therefore, when learning a second or additional language, studying grammar is a waste of time and all that is required is exposure to the target language in order to acquire competency in its use.
Which one of the following identifies the underlying assumption of the above argument?
A. Only people who know how to read can learn a second or additional language.
B. Languages are fundamentally different from one another.
C. Children are better at acquiring languages than adults.
D. Learners of second or additional languages should read the target language.
E. Acquiring a second or additional language is the same process as acquiring a first language.
1 Like
Steps:
- Identify the question type. Although not phrased in the typical Cambridge format (“What is the assumption in the argument…”) we can easily identify that it is asking for an assumption.
- Strategy Tool Kit for solving assumptions
a. Find the conclusions
b. Find the reasons
c. Find the unwritten link that the conclusion relies on
d. Discard and decide (use negation test if needed)
In this passage, we can identify that the conclusion is that when learning an additional language, “studying grammar is a waste of time and all that is required is exposure to the target language in order to acquire competency in its use”. The author justifies this by saying that children do not study grammar rules of their first language, yet they become competent users of it. The conclusion relies on the fact that the processes are the same for learning a first and second / additional language. If you say that the process for learning a first language is different to learning a second / additional language, then the author cannot say that learning grammar is a waste of time when learning a second language.
Which one of the following identifies the underlying assumption of the above argument?
A. Only people who know how to read can learn a second or additional language.
Statement A is incorrect. The passage makes no mention on whether or not someone needs to be able to read. In fact, the author uses Pre-School children as a justification when saying that learning grammar is a waste of time when learning a second language.
B. Languages are fundamentally different from one another.
Statement B is incorrect. The author does not make an comparisons between languages themselves. If you use the negation test (Languages ARE NOT fundamentally different from one another) you will notice that this does not influence the conclusion at all.
C. Children are better at acquiring languages than adults.
Statement C is incorrect. If you use the negation test (Children ARE NOT better at acquiring languages than adults) you note that this does not negate the conclusion that studying grammar for a second language is a waste of time. This is because the author is not making a comparison or creating a link between the learning abilities of children and adults.
D. Learners of second or additional languages should read the target language.
Statement D is incorrect. The negation test (Learners of second or additional languages SHOULD NOT read the target language) actually supports the conclusion, therefore this is not an assumption.
E. Acquiring a second or additional language is the same process as acquiring a first language.
Statement E is correct. If you use the negation test (Acquiring a second or additional language IS NOT the same process as acquiring a first language) then you will notice that the conclusion is invalid. The author justifies the conclusion by assuming that the learning process for a first language (just exposure and not studying grammar) will be the same for a second language, and therefore goes on to conclude that studying grammar for a second language is a waste of time.