> What's your take on the article's take that they feel this plausible hypothesis is challenged by their study? In short, I'm not convinced that they have the

> What's your take on the article's take that they feel this plausible hypothesis is challenged by their study? In short, I'm not convinced that they have the right data. They're using numbers that are relatively easy to come by or compute (e.g., current L2 speaker estimates), and it's not at all clear that this is the right set of numbers to use (see all of the comments here complaining that fusional complexity being used as a proxy for grammatical complexity).