The central idea of the passage is that endangered languages, as carriers of unique cultural perspectives and
human knowledge, must be preserved to benefit humanity. The author argues that liberal arts education plays a
vital role in this preservation, both by fostering global citizenship and by encouraging some individuals to

directly engage in preservation efforts. Liberal arts education, as framed in the passage, sensitises students to
cultural diversity and equips them with the tools to support endangered languages and cultures.
We observe that Option B, however, directly undermines this central idea by redefining the focus of liberal arts
education. Requiring fluency in two of the most widely spoken global languages (e.g., English, Spanish,
Mandarin) would prioritise dominant languages rather than endangered ones. This hypothetical scenario shifts
resources and attention away from the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is central to the passage's
argument. Such a requirement would reinforce the dominance of already powerful languages, the very
phenomenon identified as a major “language killer” in the passage. By institutionalizing the focus on dominant
languages, it would erode the argument that liberal arts education fosters support for endangered languages
and cultural preservation, ultimately weakening the role of liberal arts in addressing language extinction.
In contrast, the remaining choices either align with the discussion or do not serve as strong counterarguments
to the points presented in the passage. For instance, Option A acknowledges that most liberal arts students will
not directly engage in language preservation but does not challenge the broader idea that liberal arts education
fosters empathy and support for endangered languages. Option C limits the long-term success of language
preservation but does not negate its immediate benefits or the potential for renewal in subsequent generations.
Similarly, Option D highlights a limitation of recording dying languages but does not undermine the broader
argument that documentation is a valuable and necessary tool in preservation.