The "poverty of the stimulus" argument is offered in support of:

1. Children master grammar quickly without direct instruction and without being told what is wrong. 2. Chomsky argued that this is hard to explain unless children have significant innate knowledge of grammar. 3. Reward, imitation and drills are all learning from outside the child. 4. So the argument supports innateness, not reward, imitation or drills. **Why not the others:** Reward, imitation and drills are behaviourist routes, which the argument says cannot explain such fast learning. _Source: Wikipedia, "Language acquisition device", section "introduction" (revision 1289336714)_