Questions 1–5.

Questions 6–10. Select the TWO correct answer choices.

Questions 11–15 are based on the passage below.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which proposes that the structure of a person's language shapes or constrains the way they perceive and think about the world, has undergone a substantial rehabilitation in linguistics after decades of scholarly disrepute. Its strongest form, linguistic determinism — the claim that language rigidly determines thought, making certain concepts literally unthinkable to speakers whose language lacks the relevant vocabulary or grammar — was largely discredited by the mid-twentieth century as empirical studies failed to support such an absolute claim, and speakers of even very different languages proved capable of grasping concepts their native tongue did not neatly encode. A weaker version, linguistic relativity, has fared considerably better under subsequent empirical scrutiny. Studies of languages that grammatically encode spatial orientation using absolute directions (north, south, east, west) rather than relative terms (left, right) have found that speakers of these languages perform differently on certain non-linguistic spatial reasoning and memory tasks, tracking absolute directions with an accuracy that speakers of relative-direction languages generally cannot match without external aids such as a compass. Such findings suggest that language does not rigidly determine what is thinkable, as the strong hypothesis claimed, but may nonetheless meaningfully influence habitual patterns of attention and cognitive strategy, a considerably more modest claim than Sapir and Whorf's original formulation but one substantially more defensible given the available evidence.

Questions 16–20 are based on the passage below.

Of the world's approximately seven thousand living languages, linguists estimate that as many as half may cease to be spoken within the current century, a pace of loss that has prompted urgent documentation efforts among researchers racing to record grammars and vocabularies before the last fluent speakers of endangered languages die. Critics of this documentation-focused approach argue that recording a language's structure, however thorough, cannot preserve what is arguably most valuable about a living language: its use as a vehicle for an ongoing, evolving culture, embedded in daily practice rather than archived in a database. Documentation, on this view, produces something closer to a specimen than a living thing, useful to scholars but incapable of sustaining the intergenerational transmission that keeps a language genuinely alive. Proponents of revitalization efforts, distinct from pure documentation, work directly with remaining speakers and their descendants to reintroduce a language into homes, schools, and community life, an approach with a small number of celebrated successes, most notably the revival of Hebrew as a first language after centuries of use being restricted mainly to religious and scholarly contexts. Skeptics note that Hebrew's revival benefited from unusual historical circumstances, including a strong ideological movement and a concentrated population committed to the project, conditions not easily replicated for most endangered languages, whose remaining speaker communities are often small, geographically dispersed, and lack comparable institutional or political support.