Question

(the passage below is excerpted from an essay published in the early twentieth century.) every child has to learn the language he is born to is certain that he will make mistakes in the process, especially as he is not taught it by any wise system, but blunders into what usage he can grasp from day to day. now, if an adult foreigner were learning our language, and we greeted his efforts with yells of laughter, we should think ourselves grossly rude. and what should we think of ourselves if we further misled him by setting absurd words and phrases before him, encouraging him to further blunders, that we might laugh the more, and then, if we had visitors, inciting him to make these blunders over again to entertain the company? yet this is common household sport, so long as there is a little child to act as zany* for the amusement of his elders. the errors of a child are not legitimate grounds of humour, even to those coarse enough to laugh at them, any more than a toddling baby’s falls have the same elements of the incongruous as the overthrow of a stout old gentleman who sits down astonished in the snow. one contrast presented in the first paragraph is between a graceful and clumsy movement b formal and informal learning c substantive and superficial mistakes d mandatory and optional instruction

Explanation:

The first paragraph contrasts how a child learns language without a formal, intentional teaching system (picking up usage day-to-day through mistakes) versus the alternative of structured, required instruction. Option D matches this contrast: mandatory (formal, required) and optional (unstructured, day-to-day) instruction. Other options are unsupported: no contrast of movement (A), formal/informal learning types are not the focus (B), and the text does not distinguish substantive/superficial mistakes (C).

Answer:

D. mandatory and optional instruction