Language development specialists have discovered that most children

Question: Which of the following best summarizes the main point of the passage?

(A) Children learn languages best before puberty because their brains absorb new languages more easily than the brains of those who are post-pubescent.
Explanation: This option focuses only on the premise about pre-pubescent children’s language learning ability, ignoring the passage’s argument for implementing second language programs in elementary schools. The main point connects this premise to the recommendation, so this is incomplete.

(B) There is currently not enough government funding to provide for second language programs at the elementary level.
Explanation: While funding limitations are mentioned, the passage’s main focus is on why and how children learn languages better before puberty and the need for early programs, not on funding issues as the central argument.

(C) Because of a difference in brain development, children before puberty can learn to think in a new language more quickly than children after puberty.
Explanation: Like option A, this summarizes only the premise about brain development and language learning speed, omitting the passage’s key recommendation for elementary-level language programs. It misses the main point’s broader scope.

(D) It is a mistake to delay the teaching of second languages until high school, as there is little chance that students will be able to retain a second language.
Explanation: This option exaggerates the passage’s claim by stating there is “little chance” of retention, which is not supported. The passage says retention is easier before puberty, not impossible after. This distorts the main point.

(E) Because children learn languages more easily before puberty, schools should adopt second language programs at the elementary level.
Explanation: This option captures the passage’s core argument, linking the premise (children learn languages better before puberty) with the recommendation (implement second language programs in elementary schools). It accurately reflects the relationship between the supporting evidence and the conclusion.

The passage builds a case for early language programs based on children’s pre-pubescent learning advantages, making E the best summary.

Answer: E

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

Question asks the student to consider an argument about language development in children before puberty and to summarize the main point of the passage. Specifically, the passage begins by pointing out that specialists in language development know that pre-pubescent children learn languages better than post-pubescent children, as the brains of pre-pubescent children are more adapted to absorbing languages. The passage then points out that funding is generally limited for incorporating second language lessons to elementary children, so schools tend to delay the learning of second languages until high school, or after puberty. In order to discern the main point, the student must consider the purpose of these details, sorting out primary details and secondary details, and consider them in the context of the argument in the passage.. It is important to remember that the student is not necessarily being asked to restate the argument itself (that schools should teach second languages to pre-pubescent children), but to summarize the entire point of the passage in the context of the argument.

The Correct Answer:

E Answer choice (E) best combines all of the primary elements within the context of the argument to arrive at a main point: that because of children’s ability to absorb new languages before puberty, schools should adopt second language lessons for elementary-age children. Therefore, answer choice (E) is most correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A Answer choice (A) summarizes the point of the details in the passage but does not place these details in the context of the argument being presented. The fact that children learn languages best before puberty is significant, but it needs to be placed alongside the argument about the importance of schools teaching second languages to pre-pubescent children. Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because it leaves out important elements of the passage.

B The author of the passage does point out that there is not enough government funding for teaching second languages, but this point seems to be made within the context of why schools delay language classes until the high school years; it is not a primary detail. Therefore, answer choice (B) is not correct.

C Answer choice (C) offers a secondary detail but does not place this detail within the bigger picture offered by the passage. It does not summarize the main point of the passage and can be eliminated at once.

D Although the author of the passage does indicate clearly that children would greatly benefit from learning second languages in the elementary years, he does not pass judgment on schools that do not offer these programs. Instead, the author provides an explanation for why these programs do not exist, suggesting that such hindrances should be overcome. Answer choice (D) fails to summarize the main point of the paragraph, so it is incorrect.