A question about how one author would respond to another tests how you connect their claims and reasons. Find who answers whom and what claim they’re answering. Read both texts for their claims and reasons, separating study results from what the researchers say they show. Then predict how the author would respond: reject the claim, add a limit to it, or apply it to another case. A response needs that author’s own reason without claiming more than the text supports.
Hints
- Hint 1
The question asks Mei and Lawson to answer Haldane. Find Haldane’s claim and the reason he gives for it.
- Hint 2
Look at how the toddlers move beyond familiar phrases. What do Mei and Lawson observe about the steps involved?
- Hint 3
Compare the researchers’ final sentence with Haldane’s claim. What does each say about whether children need grammar rules at birth?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim with the findings
Step 1Find Haldane’s claim
The question asks Mei and Lawson (Text 2) to respond, so we’ll use their view to judge Haldane’s position. What does Haldane insist on? He says exposure alone cannot explain linguistic creativity, because children make sentences they haven’t heard. His conclusion is that grammar rules must be present at birth, not only that children create new sentences.
- Step 2
Trace how new utterances develop
How do the toddlers move beyond speech they’ve heard? The study found that over 85% of the children’s early utterances came from adult phrases. The children then made new versions as they substituted new words into familiar slots, so the wording changed while the phrase supplied a structure to follow. So a new sentence can use a familiar structure, even if the child hasn’t heard that exact sentence.
- Step 3
Name the researchers’ stance
What do the researchers think their findings show? They say grammatical knowledge can develop from repeated exposure to structured input, without needing to assume a full set of rules at birth. That’s a way for experience to explain the new sentences Haldane cites, so they reject the need for his blueprint. They can accept that children make new sentences while challenging what Haldane thinks those sentences prove.
- Step 4
Match the reason and its strength
The response about learning patterns from input gives the source of grammar Mei and Lawson propose. How strong should its challenge be? The phrase these patterns suggest supports saying Haldane’s claim is too strong. That questions whether an inborn blueprint is necessary without claiming that every inborn influence has been disproved. Choice A.