The passage highlights the widespread extinction of indigenous languages in North America due to
colonisation, physical annihilation, and assimilation policies while noting slightly better survival rates in Central
and South America. It implies that language survival may be influenced by factors such as social policies,
cultural integration, and the extent of physical and cultural displacement.
Evaluating the choices, we note that Option A is plausible since allowing children to stay with families would
help preserve native languages, unlike the North American policy of removing children to boarding schools, as
discussed in the passage. Option B is also reasonable, as less effective assimilation efforts by colonial
governments could lead to better language retention. Option C also aligns with the passage’s context, as it
discusses physical annihilation as a significant driver of language extinction, but the survival rate being slightly
better in South America could suggest marginally less physical annihilation.
However, Option D is problematic; while providing locals with jobs in the colonial administration might seem like
a factor that supports language retention, this scenario is not consistent with the passage. The passage
emphasises that dominant languages often replace indigenous ones through socio-economic pressures, and
employment in colonial administration would likely reinforce the use of the dominant language rather than
preserve native languages.
Hence, Option D is the best choice.