Two weaknesses of Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven’s (AP&L) argument against universal grammar are discussed in this commentary. First, their article treats the prosodic bootstrapping hypothesis (PBH) as a nativist theory, but PBH is entirely neutral with respect to the nativism-empiricism debate. Additional discussion of the plausibility of PBH is presented. Second, the rigor that AP&L direct toward nativist ideas must also be directed at empiricist claims. An understanding of how children acquire language will require nativist ideas, empiricist ideas, and ideas that are neutral on this dimension.*