This article responds to the arguments raised against the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by James Emil Flege in ’A Critical Period for Learning to Pronounce Foreign Languages?’ published in Applied Linguistics (8/2). An examination of the relevant literature leads to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to support the notion of an age-based limitation on eventual proficiency that can be attained by learners in a second language. It is argued that Flege did not represent the CPH entirely accurately, and that convincing counter-evidence to the CPH has not been presented. It is further argued that there is enough evidence to show that child second language acquirers are indeed superior in terms of ultimate ability, so that rejection of the CPH is unjustified at this time.