Solution
The question is testing comprehension of main idea vs. supporting details/distortions in passage summarization.
Option 1 Analysis: Uses absolute language ("completely shield," "all commercial influences") that represents an extreme position not advocated in the passage.
Option 2 Analysis: Accurately captures the passage's central argument—parents must intentionally teach moral values and resilience to combat excessive consumerism.
Option 3 Analysis: Distorts supporting evidence into an overstated claim; the passage describes struggles and impediments, not complete incapacity.
Option 4 Analysis: Contradicts the passage's thesis by portraying parents as powerless when the text explicitly calls for parental agency and deliberate action.
Option 1 → Misrepresents the solution as total isolation rather than intentional cultivation of values.
Option 2 → Precisely reflects the passage's call for deliberate parental intervention against consumerist indulgence through moral education.
Option 3 → Exaggerates research findings beyond what the passage states about struggling versus incapability.
Option 4 → Inverts the passage's message by suggesting parental helplessness rather than imperative parental responsibility.
Hence, Option 2 is correct because it faithfully encapsulates the passage's central thesis: parents must proactively instill enduring moral values and emotional resilience to counteract the damaging effects of hyper-consumerist culture, without distorting scope or introducing unsupported claims.