Just a few generations back, being bilingual was often frowned upon. Tests conducted in America suggested that individuals proficient in two languages possessed lower IQs. __26__ Members of such families were more likely to be undernourished and understimulated.

       How things have changed. In the past decade it has become almost common knowledge that bilingualism is good for you. Most notably, the New York Times and the BBC have shown that bilinguals get dementia on average four years later than monolinguals, and that they have an edge in “executive control”—a basket of abilities that aid people in doing complex tasks, including focusing attention, ignoring irrelevant information and updating working memory. 

        __27__ Researchers hypothesize that having two languages means suppressing one when speaking the other, a kind of constant mental exercise that makes the brain healthier. This in particular is thought to be behind the finding of a later onset of dementia. But as intellectual pendulums do, this one has begun to swing again, against the “bilingual advantage.” Though many papers have identified such a bonus, many more have tried and failed to replicate those studies. __28__ Does speaking two very distinct languages have a different effect from speaking two very similar ones? What about two dialects? Does speaking more than two provide any additional benefit?

       A recent study by four researchers at the University of the Balearic Islands is a good example. They studied 112 bilinguals using three criteria: the age they acquired a second language； fluency in their two languages (most are not equally adept in both)； and the frequency with which they switch between the two options. __29__

     On balance, it seems that if the dividend exists, it is nuanced and influenced by numerous other factors. The bottom line is that learning another language sometimes confers an intellectual boost, though not always. But that has never been the main reason to do it. A second language expands the number of people you can talk to. It adds to the ways you can say things, and so offers a second point of view on the whole business of expression. __30__ One study found that bilingual children are better at grasping other perspectives, perhaps because they are always keeping track of who speaks what, a regular reminder that everyone is different.

 (AB) Why bilingualism enhances these capabilities is unclear.

(AC) Bilingualism may help you understand other people.

(AD) Frequency of switching, it turned out, was the variable that correlated best with improved executive control, hinting that frequent switching may be a good predictor of the bilingual advantage. 

(AE) However, it was later understood that these assessments primarily reflected the socio-economic disadvantages experienced by immigrant populations.

(BC) In response to the skepticism, researchers have refined their studies, now acknowledging that bilingual people use their languages in varying ways that may account for the incongruent previous results.

        After a 45-year __31__ , in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures have made a comeback in Alabama. The state had ceased offering IVF treatments following a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court in February, which __32__ embryos created through IVF the same rights as children. However, a recent enactment of a state law __33__ clinics from legal repercussions has paved the way for the resumption of IVF services. Yet, clinicians and scientists in the United States, particularly those working with human embryos, remain __34__ , anticipating a surge in legal and constitutional challenges.

       Physicians are especially worried that officials might __35__ the number of embryos that can be created in each treatment cycle, which often entails the fertilization of several eggs. Lawmakers could also ban the freezing of __36__ embryos, which doctors say would result in less efficient and more expensive treatments.

       Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University in California, suggests that IVF’s widespread popularity in the United States may offer some __37__ for the practice. But research using human embryos—which is already restricted or even banned in some states— might be an easier target for anti-abortion __38__ , some of whom contend that life begins at conception and that __39__ an embryo is akin to killing a child. Greely underscores the anxiety __40__ the research community, stressing that there are valid reasons for concern.

(AB) shielding (AC) apprehensive (AD) accorded (AE) pervading (BC) safeguard (BD) cap (BE) hiatus (CD) advocates (CE) discarding (DE) backup

       The year 2010 saw a significant shift in the understanding of the famed “Mozart Effect” with the publication of a meticulous meta-analysis by Jakob Pietschnig, Martin Voracek, and Anton K. Formann. Their research, aptly titled “Mozart effect–Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis,” aimed to dissect the existing body of evidence surrounding the purported cognitive enhancements associated with listening to Mozart’s music. This analysis served as a crucial turning point, offering a more nuanced and objective perspective on the phenomenon.

       The researchers embarked on a rigorous quest for relevant studies, meticulously combing through academic databases to identify 36 studies that met their stringent inclusion criteria. These studies, encompassing a total of 3,000 participants, specifically investigated the effects of listening to Mozart’s music on spatial-temporal reasoning tasks. To gauge the magnitude of these effects, the researchers employed effect size calculations, a statistical measure that quantifies the difference between groups (e.g., Mozart listeners versus control groups) on spatial reasoning performance. Additionally, they conducted moderator analyses to explore potential factors influencing the effect size, such as the type of music used, the duration of listening, and the specific cognitive tasks employed.

       Contrary to the initial hype surrounding the Mozart Effect, the meta-analysis revealed a rather modest overall effect size. This indicated that listening to Mozart’s music had a minimal impact on spatial-temporal reasoning compared to control conditions. Furthermore, the analysis suggested that the observed effects were more likely attributable to factors such as mood enhancement and increased arousal rather than a direct improvement in spatial ability. Listening to enjoyable music, regardless of the composer, can elevate mood and alertness, which may indirectly enhance cognitive performance by improving focus and motivation. Interestingly, the researchers found no evidence to support the claim that the Mozart Effect was exclusive to Mozart’s music. Other genres, including Baroque and even pop music, could also produce similar cognitive enhancements, suggesting that the effect is not unique to Mozart’s compositions.

       The meta-analysis by Pietschnig et al. (2010) played a critical role in reshaping the scientific understanding of the Mozart Effect. By providing a more balanced and critical perspective, the findings challenged the initial claims of a direct and substantial improvement in spatial intelligence. Instead, they highlighted the role of mood and arousal as potential mediators of the observed effects, suggesting that the benefits of music listening extend beyond specific cognitive domains.