  In the example of polar interrogatives, discussed above, we saw how  children apparently require explicit falsifying evidence in order to  rule out the plausible-seeming but false hypothesis, H1. Premiss 2 of the argument generalizes this claim: there are many instances in  which learners need specific kinds of falsifying data to correct  their mistakes (data that the argument goes on to assert are  unavailable). These claims about the data learners would need in  order to learn grammar are underpinned by certain assumptions about  the learning algorithm they employ. For example, the idea that false  hypotheses are rejected only when they are explicitly falsified in  the data suggests that learners are incapable of taking any kind of  probabilistic or holistic approach to confirmation and  disconfirmation. Likewise, the idea that learners unequipped with  inborn knowledge of UG are very likely indeed to entertain false  hypotheses suggests that their method of generating hypotheses is  insensitive to background information or past experience. (e.g.,  information about what sorts of generalizations have worked in other  contexts