Question

Which of the following best summarizes the argument of the passage above?

• A. Learning English warps the mind
• B. Language policy should be devised with an eye to social context.
• C. Literacy campaigns in India have failed.
• D. English should be taught at the secondary school level.
• A. Literacy campaigns are more successful when conducted in English.
• B. Learning English at an early age has been found to weaken class distinctions.
• C. Children who learn English at the primary school stage have been found to show greater intellectual ability than those who learn English only at the secondary level.
• D. All of the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Identify the main claim of the passage
The passage starts with the statement: \[ \text{“A language is most easily learnt when it is in tune with the social context.”} \] Then it criticizes teaching English to Indian children at the primary level, as it: - Strengthens class and status distinctions - Warps the mind - Hampers literacy campaign success when regional languages are not used Step 2: Summarize the core argument
The author is not against English per se, but emphasizes the mismatch between the language and the learner’s environment. The **social context** is key. Step 3: Evaluate the options - (a) Learning English warps the mind} → This is a quoted effect, but not the main argument or policy direction. - (b) Language policy should be devised with an eye to social context} → Yes! This captures the author’s central recommendation and aligns with the message. - (c) Literacy campaigns in India have failed} → The author only mentions that some literacy campaigns were hampered—not an absolute failure. - (d) English should be taught at the secondary school level} → This is not discussed explicitly. It's an inference, but not the argument. % Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(b)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand the core argument to be weakened
The argument claims: - English at primary level is harmful (warps mind, enforces class distinction) - Literacy campaigns fail when they don’t use regional languages So anything that supports early English learning or disproves the harms stated will weaken the argument. Step 2: Analyze each option - (a) Literacy campaigns are more successful when conducted in English} → Contradicts the author's claim that regional languages are essential. - (b) Learning English at an early age weakens class distinctions} → Directly counters the claim that it strengthens social division. - (c) Children who learn English earlier show greater intellectual ability} → Opposes the idea that it “warps the mind.” Each of (a), (b), and (c) undermines a core part of the argument. Hence, the best choice is: - (d) All of the above % Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \]